- Joined
- Feb 2, 2013
- Messages
- 14,520
- Reaction score
- 3,785
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That is an opinion I do not share.
That is an opinion I do not share.Terminating a pregnancy (within previously accepted guidelines), does not involve "death".
Somehow no one ever heard of this right to engage in deviant sexual activity before 1965.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."
Perhaps by putting the 9th in bold?'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?
Opinions mean nothing when it comes to laws.That is an opinion I do not share.
That is an opinion I do not share.
My definition of life is the same as yours and that of everybody else. It describes living things.OK, then what is your definition of "life", the termination of which could be called "death" ?
But that ovum's "right to life" is not and never has been a presumed right in civilization. The right to privacy (keep the government out my bedroom) precedes the Constitution and the settlement of this country.When human ovum enters the fallopian tubes, it is alive. It only dies by neglect. What about the living ovum's right to life? We need Texas to get on that.
muh tradishuns going way back before the country was even founded. Yeah i threw up a little inside....'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?
When you get "tough on crime" propagandists be very careful about what they propose. They might wanna lock people up so private prisons can profit off slave wages.I honestly don't understand how civil asset forfeiture is even slightly legal.
We don't have anything similar in the UK.
Sure we can be fined but that's done by courts. The police can't just take stuff on the pretense that it may be involved in some unknown crime, thats blatant theft.
My definition of life is the same as yours and that of everybody else. It describes living things.
This didn't look right to my eyes, so I looked it up. There are other sources, but here's Wikipedia'sI honestly don't understand how civil asset forfeiture is even slightly legal.
We don't have anything similar in the UK.
Sure we can be fined but that's done by courts. The police can't just take stuff on the pretense that it may be involved in some unknown crime, thats blatant theft.
No. Homicide describes murder. My definition is fine. Viruses are not living things. You will not find them in the taxonomic tables. They are a DNA or RNA string in a protein wrapper.So eating a vegetable is "murder" ?
I think you need a better definition for "life"
Is a virus a living thing ?
You're missing the point, my friend. What's important is to shape definitions to fit the preferred result, not reach a result based upon the law, logic or biology. Reality has no bearing on the process.So eating a vegetable is "murder" ?
I think you need a better definition for "life"
Is a virus a living thing ?
This didn't look right to my eyes, so I looked it up. There are other sources, but here's Wikipedia's
United Kingdom
In the UK, asset forfeiture proceedings are initiated under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These fall into various types. Firstly there are confiscation proceedings. A confiscation order is a court order made in the Crown Court requiring a convicted defendant to pay a specified amount of money to the state by a specified date. Secondly, there are cash forfeiture proceedings, which take place (in England and Wales) in the Magistrates Court with a right of appeal to the Crown Court, having been brought by either the police or customs. Thirdly, there are civil recovery proceedings that are brought by the National Crime Agency "NCA". Neither cash forfeiture proceedings nor proceedings for a civil recovery order require a prior criminal conviction.
In Scotland, confiscation proceedings are initiated by the procurator fiscal or Lord Advocate through the Sheriff Court or High Court of Justiciary. Cash forfeiture and civil recovery are brought by the Civil Recovery Unit of the Scottish Government in the Sheriff Court, with appeals to the Court of Session.
In the UK, some cash seizures are authorized (in amounts over £ 1000) Proceeds of Crime Act, see Section 47C.
There is a process, and immediate seizure is possible (as in the US). The differences are the post-seizure proceedings.
You're free to be wrong.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.
Obviously you don't think a human fetus is human. You are free to be wrong.You're free to be wrong.
Where did I say anything about a fetus? Maybe you should review what I wrote before you make erroneous presumptions again. Regardless, a ZEF is not yet a born, individual human nor a person.Obviously you don't think a human fetus is human. You are free to be wrong.
You just confirmed what I said.Where did I say anything about a fetus? Maybe you should review what I wrote before you make erroneous presumptions again. Regardless, a ZEF is not yet a born, individual human nor a person.
You failed to refute what I said.You just confirmed what I said.
Abortion is as old as Mesopotamian civilization and probably older.Modern birth control is more of a "human contrivance" than money is. Money goes back 5000 years.
That is an opinion I do not share.
Of course it is. If it were fact then millions wouldn't disagree with you.Except it's not an opinion.
My definition of life is the same as yours and that of everybody else. It describes living things.
Yes they all die. No exceptions.So you see the "death" of animals the same way that you see the "death" of vegetables ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?