• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Proof of the Founding Fathers intent:

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
doughgirl said:
James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, had this to say: "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

Self explanitory..........
So's this:
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
doughgirl said:
And from what I have read over half the Declaration’s signers had some sort of divinity school training, and while John Adams was the most overtly pious, even the non-believers among the founders, such as Benjamin Franklin, turned to God. During the Constitutional Convention, it was Franklin who not only offered a prayer but who added:

"Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance."


Who does he mean by HIS?
Allah. Jehovah. Zeus. Odin. It could refer to any deity, or none. Actually, since he refers to "a Superintending providence," I'll go with that, and that refers to God, according to my dictionary. But you know what? I say the Pledge of Allegiance in my classroom every week. When someone sneezes, I often say "God bless you." When I eat dinner with a religious person, I say Grace; I have even said the Hebrew blessing, when I have eaten at Jews' houses. None of these things necessarily prove I have faith, nor that any of my decisions or policies are based on someone else's definitions of my faith.

doughgirl said:
Patrick Henry, in 1776, stated, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.”


I realize he was not a signer but do you think he could have gotten away with saying something like this if the signers had not been Christian?
Would anyone have gotten away with it?
Well, yes, because the Founding Fathers believed in this:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

doughgirl said:
If our goal is to keep religion from dictating the moral principles and laws of our country, we are hundreds of years too late. Every significant document that defines the values of the United States-including the DEclaration, the Constitution and The Bill of Rights-leans heavily on a belief in God and the moral authority of the Bible. And the Bible recognizes a fetus as a creation of God. The Bible is against abortion and I am sure that the signers were against abortion as well. Let me elaborate further.........


CAring for human LIFE is why we have government in the first place. That is the first and only legitimate reason for our government. Our forefathers said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident." They're saying this is a no-brainer, its self evident, but just so nobody misses it, we'll write it down......"we are endowed by our Creator"-not by the Bush Administration, not by the courts-but by our creator with inalienable right to life." The freedoms in the Bill of Rights are NOT given to us by the Founding Fathers or by the Consititution. they are given by God. And if you would notice..........which right is listed first? The right that makes all others possible. And CoffeeSaint...it isn't Liberty, its the "inalienable right to LIFE". As I have said before.........without this first right......the others do not matter.

To secure these rights, governments are instituted. To protect human life-to secure our inalienable right to life is why government exists. We who are pro-life hold that truth to be self-evident. The problem is....not everyone does.
All right; since I am an atheist, I find it very hard to take arguments like this seriously, so please try to bear with me if my tone slips into nasty. I am not trying to dismiss you out of hand.

I would agree that most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, and had Christian morals. I would agree that many of the beliefs they instilled into the founding documents of this country were Christian in origin. However, since there are innumerable different sects of Christianity, with innumerable different beliefs and different interpretations of Scritpture and Christian dogma, we can NOT assume that the Founding Fathers would have agreed with any particular tenet of any particular Christian faith. All we have to go by is what they wrote. If they had truly wanted this nation to follow the Ten Commandments, they would have written those laws specifically into the Constitution; they did not, hence they did not want that.
That being said, did the Founding Fathers agree that the Right to Life overrode all other rights? In fact, did they agree that our government should hold that the right to life was inalienable, and that it trumped all other rights, in all situations? They did not. becasue the Constitution, the single, overriding document, the Alpha and Omega of United States laws, does not mention that right. It does not grant the inalienable right to life. It does not say that that right is the only one that truly matters. and it does not say that fetuses are granted the status of personhood, and are thus protected by the laws of the Constitution.

It doesn't matter what beliefs or strongly-held doctrines we impute to the founding Fathers; the documents they left behind are the final answer, not their intentions. Their intentions aid us in interpreting those documents, and that is all; their intentions do not override the wording of the documents --- in other words, even if they did think abortion the greatest crime of all, they WROTE that the woman has the right to privacy, so that one wins. As I said before in this thread, while it IS reasonable to assume that the Founding Fathers would have seen a fetus as a person deserving of the Constitution's protections, it is also reasonable to assume that they did NOT see a fetus that way. Therefore, there is no clear answer to this question; it is one we must work out for ourselves.
 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Felicity said:
I don't see where it says "privacy" there anywhere. I know it's been interpreted that way with regard to abortion because of the Casey case that was designed and executed by Planned Parenthood and supporters specifically to set up case law that may lead to such a thing as RVW--but there is no "right to privacy" stated in the constitution.

And second--since when is not allowing elective abortion "search and seizure?" If someone forcibly attacked you and took your fetus--that would be illegal seizure, a law that doesn't permit an action cannot be against the 4th amendment or else ALL laws that prohibit actions would be unconstitutional.

The 4th amendment only applies if you only pay attention to the first eleven words and IGNORE the rest of the sentence.


See....where's the rest of the 4th amendment in your argument? It was a complete sentence--and only ONE sentence--it specifically SAYS what she is secure against.....UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. Not EVERYTHING she can imagine. Why isn't recreational drug use legal then? Why isn't it legal to tote around concealed weapons? How can restaurants and schools have particular "dress codes" if I am secure in my person alone and no one can infringe upon that without violating my constitutional right? There is no “right” to security of “person” –it is a right for a person to be secure AGAINST unreasonable SEARCH and SIEZURE.

You are right to attack this post; I was wrong to use the 4th Amendment to validate a woman's right to choose. Now that I have looked at the actual Roe decision, I see it's a whole lot more complicated than that:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 -485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 -542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] * (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation. (Emphasis mine)
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113

How far do we want to carry this argument? Do I need to read through all of those decisions? Or can we accept that the Court has a legal precedent to protect a woman's right to privacy, but no legal precedent to protect the child's life?
If we want the Constitution to protect the child's rights, we need to change the Constitution.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CoffeeSaint said:
You are right to attack this post; I was wrong to use the 4th Amendment to validate a woman's right to choose. Now that I have looked at the actual Roe decision, I see it's a whole lot more complicated than that:


caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113

How far do we want to carry this argument? Do I need to read through all of those decisions? Or can we accept that the Court has a legal precedent to protect a woman's right to privacy, but no legal precedent to protect the child's life?
If we want the Constitution to protect the child's rights, we need to change the Constitution.
I'm sorry....I said Casey-v-Planned Parenthood was the privacy case---no, that is the one that states unequivocally in the ruling that abortion is to be a continued right because birth control has become so pervasive that we need to rely on abortion due to the path our society has taken....The case I should have said was the Griswold-v-Connecticut case....http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/
and that is one among those listed in Roe--and the one that the connection to reproductive privacy that Roe hangs its hat on.
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_039000_griswoldvcon.htm
GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
In this 1965 decision, the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional right of privacy.

[my emphasis]


It isn't even argued that the Griswold situation was a set up by Planned Parenthood to specifically contradict the laws that the state of Connecticut was enacting. It created a situation specifically to thwart the progress of the state of Connecticut's Constitutional right to decide matters not mentioned in the Constitution in order to use the judiciary to usurp state powers. It was an INTENTIONAL--INCREMENTAL intrusion upon the right of states to decide such issues in order to establish case law that could then ALSO be expanded upon over and over until the right to kill unborn offspring would be so mired in case law as to become nearly impossible to untangle the constitution from the mass of legal rulings that can be listed in such a ruling as Roe.

That is an abuse in my opinion.
 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Felicity said:
I'm sorry....I said Casey-v-Planned Parenthood was the privacy case---no, that is the one that states unequivocally in the ruling that abortion is to be a continued right because birth control has become so pervasive that we need to rely on abortion due to the path our society has taken....The case I should have said was the Griswold-v-Connecticut case....http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/
and that is one among those listed in Roe--and the one that the connection to reproductive privacy that Roe hangs its hat on.
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_039000_griswoldvcon.htm
GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT
In this 1965 decision, the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional right of privacy.

[my emphasis]
I saw fifteen cases cited as precedents for the right to privacy; I understand your assertion that Griswold may have been the primary precedent, but if Griswold was based on the other fourteen cases, or any others that I haven't seen, how does that make Griswold a bad precedent for Roe? Your source does make this statement that Griswold expanded the right to privacy, but it is not the most reliable source in terms of legal analysis; could I find another that would say the decision merely recognized the right that had been there all along?

Felicity It isn't even argued that the Griswold situation was a set up by Planned Parenthood to specifically contradict the laws that the state of Connecticut was enacting. It created a situation specifically to thwart the progress of the state of Connecticut's Constitutional right to decide matters not mentioned in the Constitution in order to use the judiciary to usurp state powers. It was an INTENTIONAL--INCREMENTAL intrusion upon the right of states to decide such issues in order to establish case law that could then ALSO be expanded upon over and over until the right to kill unborn offspring would be so mired in case law as to become nearly impossible to untangle the constitution from the mass of legal rulings that can be listed in such a ruling as Roe. That is an abuse in my opinion.[/QUOTE said:
And that is your opinion, according to this post. Do you have evidence that Roe was the culmination of a grand conspiracy begun 10 years before in Connecticut?
More to the point, I don't see this as an abuse. I see this as a perfectly legitimate way for the people of the U.S. to "petition their government for a redress of grievances." Even if the situation was doctored, how does that make the law any less the law? Are you saying that the Constitution does NOT guarantee some right to privacy? Should the rest of those cases that hinge on that right also be overturned? Or are you just advocating that people should be arrested and jailed for passing out condoms in Connecticut? The law in Connecticut should have been unconstitutional, in my opinion; it was an attempt to legislate a specific, and specifically religious, morality that had no relevance to the state's interest. Or would you argue that the state does have the right to intrude on a married couple's use of contraception?
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Interesting blog by a pro-choicer relevant to this issue...
http://www.edthibodeau.com/nonplussed/2005/09/roe_v_scott.html



I posted this on a different forum but it applies here:

Nowhere in the constitution is it explicitly stated we have a “right to privacy”—the concept of privacy IS protected in various wordings throughout the constitution, but never a blanket “right to privacy” upon which Roe was decided.

The specific “reproductive rights” so oft mentioned in the abortion debate finds its genesis in Griswald v Connecticut—a case about contraception .
The Supreme Court in Griswold decided that:

1.There are unmentioned, yet fundamental rights within the Constitution

2.The lack of a specific mention of a certain right doesn't mean it does not exist.

3.These unmentioned, fundamental rights, can not be restricted, and the 14th Amendment applies this restriction to the states.

4.The "right to privacy" was one of these rights which is not mentioned, but implied within the Constitution.

Roe then took it further—

5.“Liberty”—a legal term—took on a new ideal that encompassed “freedom from psychological stress” and “freedom from hardship”—as a constitutional “liberty interest". (another watered down word) (I have a sister-in-law that causes me psychological stress—what do I do with her?)

6.“Life” as protected by the Constitution became “post-natal” and one could argue that goes AGAINST the 9th amendment—the court didn’t even consider it. Had they it would have run them smack up against...

7.The inalienable right to life—in which there can be NO distinction made concerning “potential” or full life—it’s an INALIENABLE right--UNTOUCHABLE!

8.The court claimed as "fact" that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense" to justify denying rights to the unborn. That is simply NOT fact. The unborn are treated as persons in myriad laws and rulings.

9.The 14th amendment which was used to overturn Dred Scott—another constitutional question about what constitutes a “full person”—was applied in Roe to justify the elimination of what has been determined not to be a “full person”. THE IRONY!

10.Furthermore, the court even contradicted its own claims when it arbitrarily decided that the unborn—who as earlier stated were not full persons, at an undetermined point do get some protection by stating, "at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant" over the woman's "right to privacy". The ruling went so far as to say “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer" concerning when life begins. SO HOW DOES THE COURT JUSTIFY THE RULING based on their own speculative ideas about life and trimester development of fetuses? It’s BLATANT contradiction!


In the case of Roe—MILLIONS have been deprived of their explicit “inalienable” right to life due to an erroneous interpretation of an implied right to privacy.



http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html#2
 
Last edited:

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Felicity said:
Interesting blog by a pro-choicer relevant to this issue...
http://www.edthibodeau.com/nonplussed/2005/09/roe_v_scott.html



I posted this on a different forum but it applies here:

Nowhere in the constitution is it explicitly stated we have a “right to privacy”—the concept of privacy IS protected in various wordings throughout the constitution, but never a blanket “right to privacy” upon which Roe was decided.

The specific “reproductive rights” so oft mentioned in the abortion debate finds its genesis in Griswald v Connecticut—a case about contraception .
The Supreme Court in Griswold decided that:

1.There are unmentioned, yet fundamental rights within the Constitution

2.The lack of a specific mention of a certain right doesn't mean it does not exist.

3.These unmentioned, fundamental rights, can not be restricted, and the 14th Amendment applies this restriction to the states.

4.The "right to privacy" was one of these rights which is not mentioned, but implied within the Constitution.
Isn't this exactly the argument you would make that the fetus has the inalienable right to life, a right not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but implied? Why does it fail here, and pass there?

felicity said:
Roe then took it further—

5.“Liberty”—a legal term—took on a new ideal that encompassed “freedom from psychological stress” and “freedom from hardship”—as a constitutional “liberty interest". (another watered down word) (I have a sister-in-law that causes me psychological stress—what do I do with her?)

6.“Life” as protected by the Constitution became “post-natal” and one could argue that goes AGAINST the 9th amendment—the court didn’t even consider it. Had they it would have run them smack up against...

7.The inalienable right to life—in which there can be NO distinction made concerning “potential” or full life—it’s an INALIENABLE right--UNTOUCHABLE!
I'm not sure what's wrong with the "liberty" argument here; don't we have a right to avoid undue stress? There is no law in any state that says you have to put up with your sister-in-law. Creating a law that says you MUST spend time with your sister-in-law; now that would be a violation of your rights, don't you think?
If life, by definition, includes pre-natal life (and that's a BIG stretch), and the right to life is inalienable, we need to charge everyone who has had an abortion with murder. (Every doctor who has ever pulled the plug on a patient with murder, though that's not the issue.) Every person who has ever accidentally caused a miscarriage, through a car accident, causing the pregnant woman undue stress, etc., needs to be charged with manslaughter.
Morally, the right to life may be inalienable. Legally, there are no inalienable rights. Even the right to privacy that formed the basis of Roe was limited, within the very decision that you say exaggerated it.
And why can't there be a distinction between full life and potential life? That seems like a perfectly rational point to me. I thought we were arguing constitutional law here; does the Constitution state, or imply, that a fetus is a complete human person?

Felicity said:
8.The court claimed as "fact" that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense" to justify denying rights to the unborn. That is simply NOT fact. The unborn are treated as persons in myriad laws and rulings.
Are they recognized as such anywhere in the Constitution?

Felicity said:
9.The 14th amendment which was used to overturn Dred Scott—another constitutional question about what constitutes a “full person”—was applied in Roe to justify the elimination of what has been determined not to be a “full person”. THE IRONY!
What's ironic about it? No no, I see it, I'm being facetious. But Dred Scott matched the court's definition of a full person; a fetus did not. You disagree, I know, but that doesn't make you right and them wrong. We can argue about it, but I don't think it can be proven either way to a legal standard. The mother is a full person, just like Dred Scott; her personhood, and protection under the law, can be proven, and thus must be defended.

Felicity said:
10.Furthermore, the court even contradicted its own claims when it arbitrarily decided that the unborn—who as earlier stated were not full persons, at an undetermined point do get some protection by stating, "at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant" over the woman's "right to privacy". The ruling went so far as to say “When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer" concerning when life begins. SO HOW DOES THE COURT JUSTIFY THE RULING based on their own speculative ideas about life and trimester development of fetuses? It’s BLATANT contradiction!
As I have said, the court was placed in an untenable position; they probably should have refused to hear the case. But since the case had the right to be heard, that wasn't a good option either. They were forced to try to divide two persons who cannot be divided, the mother and her unborn child; there is no other situation comparable to this one in our society, no other time when two individuals cannot be separated without the death of one in every case, and the survival of the other in (effectively) every case. Even conjoined twins do not have the same situation, because they did not bring about their own circumstances.

That being said, they did hear the case, which means they needed to rule on it. And they ruled exactly as I described in my earlier post to Trajan: they upheld the right that was already enumerated by the Constitution and by legal precedent, which was the right to privacy of the mother; they did not uphold the undefined rights of the fetus. They did, however, make a "good faith" attempt to allow that decision to be made by the states, in that they left part of the law open to interpretation. They tried to handle a true legal paradox, an impossible situation; I think we should not criticize them too harshly.

Felicity said:
In the case of Roe—MILLIONS have been deprived of their explicit “inalienable” right to life due to an erroneous interpretation of an implied right to privacy.



http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html#2
The right is not explicit, Felicity, as much as you may want it to be; I personally would argue that it should not be, but we're not having that argument right now. ;) The Constitution does not define fetuses as persons, nor does it grant ANYONE an inalienable right to life. Nobody can be deprived of life without due process; that is all. If the courts have decided that a woman's personal decision, made in consultation with a medical doctor, constitutes due process, then the fetus has no right to life at all, not until a constitutional amendment is passed changing this situation.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
All right; since I am by no means a Constitutional scholar, I don't know that I'm going to be able to handle all three of you piling into me at once, but I'll give it my best shot.
Neither am I, but I can read, that should be enough.

And had they made that decision, they might have had a case against the protection of privacy that is the basis of the RvW case. However, to my knowledge, there has been no law passed that states specifically that life begins at conception, by ANY state. Am I wrong on that? Since there is no legal precedent for the zygote's personhood or protection under the Constitution, the Supreme Court could not rule against a right that is protected by the Constitution, in favor of a law that might be created at some point in the future. The court may have gone too far morally, but legally they had no alternative; they had to uphold the Constitution as it was written. Tell me, in the 30+ years since RvW, why have the states not used their specifically enumerated power to amend the Constitution to create a legal precedent that specifically grants the status of person to a zygote?
RVW took away the states right to decide, that's the whole point.
Actually, it did not, in my eyes; since it allowed for a "sliding scale" of a woman's right to abortion, with unresetricted access in the first trimester, restricted access in the second, and emergency access only in the third trimester, the SC made the best "good faith" attempt to protect what they presumably saw as the moral position, if not the legal one, i.e., the protection of the zygote. But to rule against a woman's right to privacy would be unconstitutional.
Sorry, but that is not the Supreme Court's decision to make.
You may be right here, but I want to research the actual ruling before I concede the point here.
Research it all you want.
I was right; you don't read what I write. Go back and look at my last post; I have repeated myself enough.
What are you talking about you have completely ignored and if not ignored played down the Xth amendment.
No, the Constitution does not give a definition of personhood, and we cannot prove one way or the other what exactly they meant by personhood. That means that, no matter what we all believe, not matter what convincing argument you may have for the personhood of a fetus, it is not necessarily guaranteed protection because it is reasonable to assume that the drafters may not have seen it as a person. Have you noticed that I don't argue fetal personhood? That's why. It is irrelevant, IMO.
Nor does it mean that it guarantees that the fetus isn't protected that's where the Xth amendment comes in to play.

No, I conclude that the definition of a zygote's personhood should be left up to the states. However, the states cannot make laws that violate the woman's right to privacy without amending the Constitution, and a ban on abortion would violate that right.
Ya the RVW decision took away the rights to decide if the fetus is guaranteed the rights of life, that's why it's unconstitutional.

The woman's right is protected, because she is specifically included as a person in the Constitution. The zygote's is not. Constitutional protections trump all other laws. (Note that they also trump the Declaration's descriptions, including the "right" to life.)
Where does it say in the constitution that the Zygote is not protected? It doesn't therfore it is for the states to decide.

The Supreme Court was put in an untenable position, and they did the best they could. They had to protect the rights of the mother, but they could not rule on the rights of the fetus; and, as we have been arguing for the thirty years since, how can you separate the two? They made the only choice they could: they protected the one right specifically delineated in the Constitution, the right of a woman to be secure in her person. They could not rule against that right. They tried to leave the matter of fetal personhood up to the states, in deciding to allow bans on late term abortions, but they had to protect the moother's rights. Exactly as I have always argued, the mother's right to choose may be unfortunate, but in our society, it is necessary. If you want to change that, and protect fetal personhood, you need to do one of two things: get the Constitution changed so that it SPECIFICALLY grants personhood to a zygote; or invent a way that the fetus can be protected, without infringing on the mother's right to choose not to be pregnant. Until then, RvW should stand.
The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to deny nor grant the right of life to the zygote that's why RVW is unconstitutional.
Vive la Revolucion!

You say it like it's a joke:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 
Last edited:

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Neither am I, but I can read, that should be enough.


RVW took away the states right to decide, that's the whole point.

Sorry, but that is not the Supreme Court's decision to make.

Research it all you want.

What are you talking about you have completely ignored and if not ignored played down the Xth amendment.

Nor does it mean that it guarantees that the fetus isn't protected that's where the Xth amendment comes in to play.


Ya the RVW decision took away the rights to decide if the fetus is guaranteed the rights of life, that's why it's unconstitutional.


Where does it say in the constitution that the Zygote is not protected? It doesn't therfore it is for the states to decide.


The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to deny nor grant the right of life to the zygote that's why RVW is unconstitutional.


You say it like it's a joke:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You have one point here, and it is one I have already refuted: I understand that the Tenth Amendment gives the states the right to individually decide when/if a fetus is a person with all of the constitutional protections. The Supreme Court should not void that right through its decisions. You are correct. However, the Tenth Amendment says that the rights NOT specifically enumerated in this constitution are left up to the states. The Right to Privacy is in the Constitution, according to almost a century of legal precedent leading up to the decision. That means that the states can NOT make a law infringing on a woman's right to choose.
Now: can you make a law protecting a fetus's right to life, without infringing on a mother's right to choose? If you can, I will dance in the streets, for this debate will be over. If you cannot, then your argument is moot; the right of the states to decide on fetal personhood does not override a single woman's right to privacy, which is protected against the state's interference by the Government.
By the way, the States do have a way to override the Supreme Court's decision: they can amend the Constitution, with 2/3 of the states agreeing. Pass a Constitutional Amendment declaring all fetuses protected by the Constitution, and THEN try to overturn RvW.

As for the Revolution, I don't believe there will be one. I also don't think the cause of abortion is enough reason to want one. If there was one for whatever reason, it would fail. Therefore, it is a joke, IMO. But if you want to take up arms and try to create your own state, I won't say you can't.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
You have one point here, and it is one I have already refuted: I understand that the Tenth Amendment gives the states the right to individually decide when/if a fetus is a person with all of the constitutional protections. The Supreme Court should not void that right through its decisions. You are correct. However, the Tenth Amendment says that the rights NOT specifically enumerated in this constitution are left up to the states. The Right to Privacy is in the Constitution, according to almost a century of legal precedent leading up to the decision. That means that the states can NOT make a law infringing on a woman's right to choose.
Stop right there, yes you can if it is voted that the Fetus is a person guaranteed the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then that choice to take away those rights would be illegal, it would be akin that murdering someone is not illegal and should be allowed because to not allow it would be in violation of the right to privacy and the right for me to choose to kill someone.

You have still not given me a valid reason why the Xth amendment doesn't apply to the states and the people right to choose when life begins.
Now: can you make a law protecting a fetus's right to life, without infringing on a mother's right to choose? If you can, I will dance in the streets, for this debate will be over. If you cannot, then your argument is moot; the right of the states to decide on fetal personhood does not override a single woman's right to privacy, which is protected against the state's interference by the Government.



By the way, the States do have a way to override the Supreme Court's decision: they can amend the Constitution, with 2/3 of the states agreeing. Pass a Constitutional Amendment declaring all fetuses protected by the Constitution, and THEN try to overturn RvW.

As for the Revolution, I don't believe there will be one. I also don't think the cause of abortion is enough reason to want one. If there was one for whatever reason, it would fail. Therefore, it is a joke, IMO. But if you want to take up arms and try to create your own state, I won't say you can't.

I'm for the right of the people to either change or abolish their government I lean more towards reactionary change not because of abortion but because this country has been under the control of big government socialists since FDR and it has become a government of, by, and for the government.
 
Last edited:

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Stop right there, yes you can if it is voted that the Fetus is a person guaranteed the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then that choice to take away those rights would be illegal, it would be akin that murdering someone is not illegal and should be allowed because to not allow it would be in violation of the right to privacy and the right for me to choose to kill someone.
Okay. Was that law, making a fetus a person guaranteed the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, passed by the states? Or did they just pass a law banning abortion? If you pass the first law, you have an argument for the second; not that it means the right to privacy vanishes and you win automatically, but you have an argument. If you do not pass a law declaring fetuses as persons, you have nothing.
Was that law passed?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You have still not given me a valid reason why the Xth amendment doesn't apply to the states and the people right to choose when life begins.
Yes, I have. You don't agree with it, but you haven't proven me wrong. The right to privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution; the Tenth Amendment gives the states the right to determine laws that are not in the Constitution. The states cannot pass any law that violates a right guaranteed by the Constitution, including the right to privacy.. So you can declare fetuses persons, but you can't ban abortion. How's that?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I'm for the right of the people to either change or abolish their government I lean more towards reactionary change not because of abortion but because this country has been under the control of big government socialists since FDR and it has become a government of, by, and for the government.

This position is so far out of line with my own, that I have nothing to say to this, good or bad.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
Okay. Was that law, making a fetus a person guaranteed the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, passed by the states? Or did they just pass a law banning abortion? If you pass the first law, you have an argument for the second; not that it means the right to privacy vanishes and you win automatically, but you have an argument. If you do not pass a law declaring fetuses as persons, you have nothing.
Was that law passed?
No that law was not passed because the RVW decision made it illegal for the states to pass such a law that's the whole damn point.
Yes, I have. You don't agree with it, but you haven't proven me wrong. The right to privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution; the Tenth Amendment gives the states the right to determine laws that are not in the Constitution. The states cannot pass any law that violates a right guaranteed by the Constitution, including the right to privacy.. So you can declare fetuses persons, but you can't ban abortion. How's that?
Yes but you can pass a law that states that a fetus is a person and thus protected by the 4th and 14th amendments, however, the RVW decision made the passing of any such law impossible. So like I said let the people have their vote.


This position is so far out of line with my own, that I have nothing to say to this, good or bad.
 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No that law was not passed because the RVW decision made it illegal for the states to pass such a law that's the whole damn point.

Yes but you can pass a law that states that a fetus is a person and thus protected by the 4th and 14th amendments, however, the RVW decision made the passing of any such law impossible. So like I said let the people have their vote.
No, the RvW did not make that law impossible to pass, which is my whole point. It made it illegal to ban abortion, but you can still pass a law declaring that fetuses have rights. If you want to decalre fetuses to be persons, and then challenge RvW on that basis, it might even work; RvW did not state "Fetuses may not be seen as persons within this country." It said that the states could not infringe on the woman's right to privacy.

Now: is there any point to passing a fetal personhood law, when you can't ban abortion, thanks to RvW? Probably not. Could the law get challenged by pro-choice groups, and possibly defeated, under the decision? Probably, but not necessarily -- and that is how the decision allows for the Tenth Amendment. It is up to the states to figure out how to declare fetal personhood, and protect the rights of the fetus without infringing on the mother's right to privacy; it may be a nearly impossible task, but so is a reasonable penal system that doesn't violate the 8th Amendment. Government isn't supposed to be easy; that would be tyranny.

And finally, the states can always overturn the RvW decision through their ultimate power: they can pass a Constitutional Amendment that says, "Fetuses are persons, and abortion is illegal." Then the debate would be over, wouldn't it? Or if you want the states to decide the issue individually, how about, "The states can make their own decisions about abortion, without the Supreme Court deciding it for us?" That would make a nifty 28th Amendment, wouldn't it?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
No, the RvW did not make that law impossible to pass, which is my whole point. It made it illegal to ban abortion, but you can still pass a law declaring that fetuses have rights. If you want to decalre fetuses to be persons, and then challenge RvW on that basis, it might even work; RvW did not state "Fetuses may not be seen as persons within this country." It said that the states could not infringe on the woman's right to privacy.

Now: is there any point to passing a fetal personhood law, when you can't ban abortion, thanks to RvW? Probably not. Could the law get challenged by pro-choice groups, and possibly defeated, under the decision? Probably, but not necessarily -- and that is how the decision allows for the Tenth Amendment. It is up to the states to figure out how to declare fetal personhood, and protect the rights of the fetus without infringing on the mother's right to privacy; it may be a nearly impossible task, but so is a reasonable penal system that doesn't violate the 8th Amendment. Government isn't supposed to be easy; that would be tyranny.

And finally, the states can always overturn the RvW decision through their ultimate power: they can pass a Constitutional Amendment that says, "Fetuses are persons, and abortion is illegal." Then the debate would be over, wouldn't it? Or if you want the states to decide the issue individually, how about, "The states can make their own decisions about abortion, without the Supreme Court deciding it for us?" That would make a nifty 28th Amendment, wouldn't it?

No RVW also made it illegal to pass a law to delclare infants within the first trimester as people because if you were to pass such a law then the right to privacy would be null and void because the zygote would then be protected by the fourth and fourteenth rights to not have your life, liberty, or property without due process. The whole point is that RVW didn't outlaw abortion it made it law that fetuses were not people and that's why it's unconstitutional because it was not the Supreme Courts decision to make it was a decision of the individual states. Furthermore; just because the Fouding Father's did not specify the right to life for a fetus how do you automatically jump to the conclusion and assume that they aren't? I mean by that logic women aren't protected by the bill of rights because it says that all Men are created equal where does it mention women?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No RVW also made it illegal to pass a law to delclare infants within the first trimester as people
Nope. RvW doesn't mention "people" at all anywhere. I suspect that you are talking about "persons"?
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Furthermore; just because the Fouding Father's did not specify the right to life for a fetus how do you automatically jump to the conclusion and assume that they aren't? I mean by that logic women aren't protected by the bill of rights because it says that all Men are created equal where does it mention women?
Actually, read up on history a bit more-women were NOT protected at all by any US law. They did not have the right to vote, they did not have the right to own property; in fact, upon widowhood were forced to give up anything the husband had owned-his immediate male family had all rights to the deceased's property-many times a brother would marry the widow to help out, specially if children were involved as it kept the ownership in the family of adults, instead of the children of the deceased. If a woman wanted a divorce, she gave up all rights to her children as well as her home. Women had to fight for education higher than high school. Women teachers were not allowed to teach after marriage. Amendments throughtout the Constitution addressed each of these issues as time went on, but as for the Bill of Rights and the DOI, women were nonexistent.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ngdawg said:
Actually, read up on history a bit more-women were NOT protected at all by any US law. They did not have the right to vote, they did not have the right to own property; in fact, upon widowhood were forced to give up anything the husband had owned-his immediate male family had all rights to the deceased's property-many times a brother would marry the widow to help out, specially if children were involved as it kept the ownership in the family of adults, instead of the children of the deceased. If a woman wanted a divorce, she gave up all rights to her children as well as her home. Women had to fight for education higher than high school. Women teachers were not allowed to teach after marriage. Amendments throughtout the Constitution addressed each of these issues as time went on, but as for the Bill of Rights and the DOI, women were nonexistent.

And this is where you just proved my point a liberal interpretation through semantics and twisting words is a very dangerous game to play.
 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
And this is where you just proved my point a liberal interpretation through semantics and twisting words is a very dangerous game to play.

So how would interpreting the Constitution to include fetuses be a constructionist reading? Does it say "fetuses?" "Persons before birth?" Or anything even remotely similar to that? No; you have to go back to an older document, which was never officially used as the foundation of our government; that was created for one, specific purpose; that was intended to be inflammatory in tone; and from it, you pull one word, which has several possible meanings, and you assert that THIS is PROOF that the Founding Fathers meant for abortion to be illegal.
Here's a question: abortion was well known at the time of the Founding Fathers; as Saboteur noted several pages ago in this debate, it was actually a fairly hotly debated issue. I have to think, as well-educated as they were, that the Founding Fathers were at least aware of the issue. Why, then, did they not include language in the Constitution that would at least hint at a stance on the issue of fetal personhood?
Could it be that they intended that the issue be solved at a later date? Or even that, by leaving the wording out, they WERE showing their stance?
Or would that, too, be aliberal interpretation, because it doesn't fit your reading of it?
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
And this is where you just proved my point a liberal interpretation through semantics and twisting words is a very dangerous game to play.
Unlike your revisionistic views on these historical documents, I don't have to twist a word. Amendments were put in place just so women would have the rights I listed as not having prior. You simply can NOT prove your points so you accuse the rest of us of exactly what you have been doing from your original post-placing words and meanings where none are and making assumptions based on your own biases.
You have proved ALL our points with the vain attempt to support your own. Good job!
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
CoffeeSaint said:
So how would interpreting the Constitution to include fetuses be a constructionist reading? Does it say "fetuses?" "Persons before birth?" Or anything even remotely similar to that? No; you have to go back to an older document, which was never officially used as the foundation of our government; that was created for one, specific purpose; that was intended to be inflammatory in tone; and from it, you pull one word, which has several possible meanings, and you assert that THIS is PROOF that the Founding Fathers meant for abortion to be illegal.
Here's a question: abortion was well known at the time of the Founding Fathers; as Saboteur noted several pages ago in this debate, it was actually a fairly hotly debated issue. I have to think, as well-educated as they were, that the Founding Fathers were at least aware of the issue. Why, then, did they not include language in the Constitution that would at least hint at a stance on the issue of fetal personhood?
Could it be that they intended that the issue be solved at a later date? Or even that, by leaving the wording out, they WERE showing their stance?
Or would that, too, be aliberal interpretation, because it doesn't fit your reading of it?

Perhaps the Judges who voted against it can explain it better than I can:

Associate Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist wrote blistering dissenting opinions in this case.

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment," wrote Justice White. "The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

"The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."

Justice Rehnquist elaborated on this, saying: "The Court's opinion decides that a State may impose virtually no restriction on the performance of abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy . . . the Court uses her complaint against the Texas statute as a fulcrum for deciding that States may [p172] impose virtually no restrictions on medical abortions performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. In deciding such a hypothetical lawsuit, the Court departs from the longstanding admonition that it should never "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied . . . the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one.

"To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 22, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth [p175] Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.(1) While many States have amended or updated [p176] their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.(2) Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 [p177] and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante, at 119.

"There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

Or how about the person who wanted the abortion to be legalized in the first place that's right Jane Roe has switched sides on the matter:

In an interesting turn of events, "Jane Roe," whose real name is Norma McCorvey, became a member of the pro-life movement following her conversion to Christianity, and now fights to make abortion illegal. In a press conference held on January 18, 2005, McCorvey claimed that she was the "pawn" of the ambitious Weddington, who was looking for a plaintiff to challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion. Using her prerogative as a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in a U.S. District Court in Texas and have it overturned. See McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F3d 846 (5th Cir 2004). Her new stance is based on claims made since the decision, claiming evidence of emotional and other harm suffered by many women who have had abortions, and increased resources for the care of unwanted children. On June 19, 2003, Judge David Godbey ruled that the motion was not made within a "reasonable time." On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of certiorari, ending McCorvey's appeal.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Associate Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist wrote blistering dissenting opinions in this case..
Such don't matter one itty bitty bit. So what?
 

Comrade Brian

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Location
NE, Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FutureIncoming said:
Comrade Brian wrote: "Who cares about them? T-H-E-Y- A-R-E D-E-A-D."

This is too good to resist. Marx and Lenin are also plenty dead. Why should anyone care about them?

They are dead, and some things they thought are irrelavent today, but most of it is still relevant today, and really I don't care much about them personally, I like their works, thats what I like about them, as in their analysis of capitalism. But also they lived closer to today than did T. Jefferson, G. Washington and the rest of them.
 

CoffeeSaint

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
23
Location
Wherever there is caffeine, I'll be there.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
except for the fact that they were right and those who voted for it were way out of their realm of constitutional jurisdiction.
You know what, though? There were five of them who thought it was within their jurisdiction, and only four who did not. And in the end, isn't that all that matters, until you and all the other pro-life advocates manage to pass the constitutional amendment declaring that fetuses are persons?
Absolutely, we should argue about these issues; but if you start trying to prove who is 100% right, you will always run into this wall: the law of the land disagrees with you. You have a point about the liberal interpretation of the Constitution in regards to the right to privacy, since that right is not explicitly stated; that certainly weakens its power to override fetal personhood, which is also not explicitly stated. But the side that won the case has a point, as well, and if you really want to get down to brass tacks, that point had the majority, and it has not been overturned, yet.
And by the way, PLEASE, as a personal favor to me, stop trotting out Roe's conversion, as though it makes any difference to the debate. She was a single individual who stood up to represent thousands; she is not exactly the pro-choice Virgin Mary. What she represented is important; she, as an individual, is not.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
except for the fact that they were right and those who voted for it were way out of their realm of constitutional jurisdiction.
It is sad, that you who post so much about legal issues don't even know that a dissenting opinion is irrelevant to the law.:roll:
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
except for the fact that they were right and those who voted for it were way out of their realm of constitutional jurisdiction.

Frankly, I'll take the word of the Supreme Court about matters of constitutional law over your's.
 
Top Bottom