[W:#310]Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty'

[fmw]

At that point, it's still no more than a "human life" than a skin cell is. Even less so actually. But no one cries about it whenever they scratch some cells off their ass.

That is an opinion I don't share. Sorry. If it isn't human life, I wonder what kind of life you think it is.

 

[NWRatCon]

That is an opinion I don't share. Sorry. If it isn't human life, I wonder what kind of life you think it is.

It is not a "life", it is a bundle of cells that might, eventually, become a human being. But, yanno, with modern technology, any DNA can similarly be cobbled into a life. Sex is not even required. Do we need to protect all our sloughed cells to preserve the possibility of creating a human being from them? Sperm bank deposits? Frozen embryos? Since there is no privacy right anymore, do we need to keep all those disposed kleenex?

 

[fmw]

It is not a "life", it is a bundle of cells that might, eventually, become a human being. But, yanno, with modern technology, any DNA can similarly be cobbled into a life. Sex is not even required. Do we need to protect all our sloughed cells to preserve the possibility of creating a human being from them? Sperm bank deposits? Frozen embryos? Since there is no privacy right anymore, do we need to keep all those disposed kleenex?

Not true. Nobody has been able to create life from "cobbled DNA." You confuse a developing human with other kinds of life. You don't understand me at all. Sex is not required. Agreed. Fertilization is required.

 

[NWRatCon]

Not true. Nobody has been able to create life from "cobbled DNA." You confuse a developing human with other kinds of life. You don't understand me at all. Sex is not required. Agreed. Fertilization is required.

That's incredibly nonsensical. Human DNA is just the same as other life forms. I'm not sure attempting to understand is worth the effort. I don't teach grade school for a reason.

 

[fmw]

That's incredibly nonsensical. Human DNA is just the same as other life forms. I'm not sure attempting to understand is worth the effort. I don't teach grade school for a reason.

DNA is not life. It is an element of living things. As to your insult, just consider it ignored, son.

 

[multivita-man]

It is not a "life", it is a bundle of cells that might, eventually, become a human being. But, yanno, with modern technology, any DNA can similarly be cobbled into a life. Sex is not even required. Do we need to protect all our sloughed cells to preserve the possibility of creating a human being from them? Sperm bank deposits? Frozen embryos? Since there is no privacy right anymore, do we need to keep all those disposed kleenex?

Meh, I think it's a life. I don't care. It's not a fully developed life, and it's an undeveloped 'life' that depends solely on the life of a natural born person to keep it alive and growing.

Let me know when everyone's okay with the idea that any of us can be forced against our will to physically sustain the life of someone who's on life support. Let me know when we're okay with government forcing us to give up our organs, or forcing us to give blood, or forcing us to do CPR, or forcing us to do whatever the government wants to keep someone else alive. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days out of the year. Let me know when everyone here is okay with that kind of sacrifice of human autonomy and virtual slavery.

"BUT IT'S A BABY!!!!"

No. It's not. It's a fetus. There's a reason we call some creatures 'fetuses' and others 'babies.' There's a difference.

 

[bluesmoke]

It has to be fertilized before it is human life.

I agree. But the ovum is still alive before fertilization for 12-24 hrs.

 

[NWRatCon]

DNA is not life. It is an element of living things. As to your insult, just consider it ignored, son.

Good idea. Ta ta.

 

[NWRatCon]

I agree. But the ovum is still alive before fertilization for 12-24 hrs.

I find it amusing, and frustrating, to contend with individuals who will twist themselves into logical knots to defend against basic biological concepts. Any bundle of cells is "life" from a purely biological standpoint. What it will become is determined by any number of factors, most of which are not entirely understood. More than 3 million women a year will be subject to threats of legal action from spontaneous miscarriages if they happen to unfortunately be in a State that has embarked upon this legal fantasy course.

From a legal standpoint, it is nonsensical to determine arbitrarily that it is rational to call it something it is not before is actual emergence into the world. To do so requires a series of illogical and often contradictory leaps to maintain the fiction. The result will become a Gordian knot of logical legal fallacies, as in the HOV case in another thread.

The other untoward effect is the ignoring of established societal norms to "get the result" ideologues want in a particular case. That is the path the ideologues on the current Court are on, and the destruction they are embarked upon will fundamentally alter the nature of our society and our expectations and norms. They glory in that, but ask of us will suffer.

 

[fmw]

I agree. But the ovum is still alive before fertilization for 12-24 hrs.

Indeed it is. but it isn't a human being in the course of development.

 

[bluesmoke]

Indeed it is. but it isn't a human being in the course of development.

Yup. And a fertilized egg isn't a human being.

 

[fmw]

Yup. And a fertilized egg isn't a human being.

That is the basis of the whole issue. My opinion is the opposite of yours.

 

[Gordy327]

That is an opinion I don't share. Sorry. If it isn't human life, I wonder what kind of life you think it is.

I already said it's a "human life" in the same way a skin (or other) cell is a "human life." Nothing more. It's certainly not yet an actual realized human being or person.

DNA is not life. It is an element of living things. As to your insult, just consider it ignored, son.

That nullifies any argument based on said "life" having its own DNA. Not that DNA was ever really relevant to the argument to begin with.

 

[notquiteright]

Great, so that must also include financial privacy as well, meaning the government has no business knowing how much money someone makes or how they made it.

Or the Constitution doesn't grant special privilege to spousal communications so spouses can be forced to testify against their partner.

The government has a vested interest in knowing how much money someone makes. Taxes and illegal means of financial gain....

 

[KevinKohler]

Modern birth control is more of a "human contrivance" than money is. Money goes back 5000 years.

So does birth control.

 

[bluesmoke]

That is the basis of the whole issue. My opinion is the opposite of yours.

You're saying a fertilized egg is a human being?

 

[fmw]

You're saying a fertilized egg is a human being?

Of course. It isn't a giraffe.

 

[Rich2018]

Of course. It isn't a giraffe.

Or a human being.

 

[Glitch]

'Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.' Section 54—196, General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.)

This was the statute that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut. In doing so, the Supreme Court stated, "This law... operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation." As the Court then put it, "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights older than our political parties, older than our school system." We are on the precipice of laws such as this being reinstated around the country. Do we want to be?

The Court rested its decision on the concept that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." It is the same basis that informed the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. But three of the then-Justices, in concurrence, went further and specifically addressed the Ninth Amendment's application to the issue: "My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted and that it embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution1 is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment." ('The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.')

The concurrence noted that "The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments." They concluded "the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights which the Constitution guaranteed to the people."

I have always preferred the concurrence's argument over the "penumbra" argument, as it stands on firmer footing. I think almost anyone would agree that privacy is a fundamental interest of all of us, even if it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution's "Bill of Rights". As the concurrence notes, "The Ninth Amendment simply shows the intent of the Constitution's authors that other fundamental personal rights should not be denied such protection or disparaged in any other way simply because they are not specifically listed in the first eight constitutional amendments. I do not see how this broadens the authority of the Court; rather it serves to support what this Court has been doing in protecting fundamental rights."

How are we to protect fundamental rights from governmental erasure if we don't acknowledge that the Constitution is broader than its four corners?

Nothing you posted is incorrect. Where the Supreme Court screwed up in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was by creating a right where they had no constitutional authority.

The Ninth Amendment does indeed acknowledge that additional individual rights exist, but nowhere in the US Constitution will you find the authority for the federal government to create or even acknowledge an individual right that is not already specifically listed within the US Constitution. Only the States have the constitutional authority to acknowledge an unenumerated individual right. The federal government is constrained to only those powers the US Constitution grants them, and no other.

 

[fmw]

Nothing you posted is incorrect. Where the Supreme Court screwed up in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was by creating a right where they had no constitutional authority.

The Ninth Amendment does indeed acknowledge that additional individual rights exist, but nowhere in the US Constitution will you find the authority for the federal government to create or even acknowledge an individual right that is not already specifically listed within the US Constitution. Only the States have the constitutional authority to acknowledge an unenumerated individual right. The federal government is constrained to only those powers the US Constitution grants them, and no other.

Correct and the supreme court returned the issue to the states where it belongs. Roe V Wade was overturned. Abortion was not banned.

 

[Rich2018]

Nothing you posted is incorrect. Where the Supreme Court screwed up in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was by creating a right where they had no constitutional authority.

The Ninth Amendment does indeed acknowledge that additional individual rights exist, but nowhere in the US Constitution will you find the authority for the federal government to create or even acknowledge an individual right that is not already specifically listed within the US Constitution. Only the States have the constitutional authority to acknowledge an unenumerated individual right. The federal government is constrained to only those powers the US Constitution grants them, and no other.

So therefore you support abortion ?

 

[post]

Of course. It isn't a giraffe.

You'll have to reconcile with the outcome of your support for criminalization of women's reproductive healthcare that was always obvious, G.O.P. subjecting members of the voting majority to, DEATH PANELS !

 

[fmw]

You'll have to reconcile with the outcome of your support for criminalization of women's reproductive healthcare that was always obvious, G.O.P. subjecting members of the voting majority to, DEATH PANELS !

The only death panel is the abortion.

 

[Rich2018]

The only death panel is the abortion.

Terminating a pregnancy (within previously accepted guidelines), does not involve "death".

 

[craig]

I'd pay that not to use a condom.