]W:#325]Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment

[Paul191145]

In other words, you have nothing!

Nothing that you are willing to consider with any level of rational objectivity, no.

 

[Gordy327]

Nothing that you are willing to consider with any level of rational objectivity, no.

Then provide something rational worthy of consideration. So far, you have nothing.

 

[Paul191145]

Then provide something rational worthy of consideration. So far, you have nothing.

Imagine how much value I place on your closed minded opinion, I assure you it's even less than that.

 

[Gordy327]

Imagine how much value I place on your closed minded opinion, I assure you it's even less than that.

Unlike you, I did not offer an opinion. I offered fact. It seems you're the one close minded to facts.

 

[Paul191145]

Unlike you, I did not offer an opinion. I offered fact. It seems you're the one close minded to facts.

False, I presented a case based on scientific analysis and Constitutional interpretation that should lead to a logical conclusion that you dodged due to your closed mind on the subject.

 

[Gordy327]

False, I presented a case based on scientific analysis and Constitutional interpretation that should lead to a logical conclusion that you dodged due to your closed mind on the subject.

No. You're just upset i didn't agree with your so called conclusion, which does not negate actual constitutional and federal law.

 

[Paul191145]

No. You're just upset i didn't agree with your so called conclusion, which does not negate actual constitutional and federal law.

I don't care if you agree or not, I didn't present it as existing law, you are wrapped around that axle, not me.

 

[Lursa]

It was done prior to RvW.

What was 'done' prior to RW? Before, women's right to have an abortion was denied in many states. (Not all). RvW was supposed to correct that.

The federal govt has never recognized rights for the unborn, and it didnt consider them 'persons' before RvW.

Let's see you source otherwise.

An awful lot of women have put their children's health and lives before their own, my own grandmother chose to die giving birth to my mother in 1942.

Dont care. You failed to directly answer this question: If their rights to life are equal...which do you save if only one or the other can be saved? And please explain your answer without adding or changing it. It happens in real life

Care to try again?

Once again, I refer you to the 5th amendment.

Doesnt apply, as you been told and seen the proof. If the legal system and federal govt and Const dont recognize the unborn as persons with rights, the 5th does not apply to them.

All this does is deny the rights of the child growing in the woman. Don't want this problem, there are plenty of ways to not get pregnant in the first place.

Or, women can enjoy sex if they want to and have a safer medical procedure if they dont want to have a kid. Now unfortunately, some women will have to travel out of state to do so.

Once again you failed to directly answer the question, why? Here it is again: If their rights to life are equal...which do you save if only one or the other can be saved? And please explain your answer without adding or changing it. It happens in real life.

Yes I have, and I've stated that dual pronged premise multiple times, you simply don't like it.

I dont have to like it...you cant support it with anything but your opinion. "My" opinion is supported by several sources...yours is not. Your 'scientific definition' source completely failed for reasons I pointed out. Here they are again: "And I've explained that the scientific definitions dont matter because science is not the authority on rights or anything legal. Please tell me, what species does "science" recognized rights for and source it. If not, you are wrong."

Let's see your answer and source.

 

[Paul191145]

What was 'done' prior to RW? Before, women's right to have an abortion was denied in many states. (Not all). RvW was supposed to correct that.

The federal govt has never recognized rights for the unborn, and it didnt consider them 'persons' before RvW.

Let's see you source otherwise.



Dont care. You failed to directly answer this question: If their rights to life are equal...which do you save if only one or the other can be saved? And please explain your answer without adding or changing it. It happens in real life

Care to try again?



Doesnt apply, as you been told and seen the proof. If the legal system and federal govt and Const dont recognize the unborn as persons with rights, the 5th does not apply to them.



Or, women can enjoy sex if they want to and have a safer medical procedure if they dont want to have a kid. Now unfortunately, some women will have to travel out of state to do so.

Once again you failed to directly answer the question, why? Here it is again: If their rights to life are equal...which do you save if only one or the other can be saved? And please explain your answer without adding or changing it. It happens in real life.


I dont have to like it...you cant support it with anything but your opinion. "My" opinion is supported by several sources...yours is not. Your 'scientific definition' source completely failed for reasons I pointed out. Here they are again: "And I've explained that the scientific definitions dont matter because science is not the authority on rights or anything legal. Please tell me, what species does "science" recognized rights for and source it. If not, you are wrong."

Let's see your answer and source.

Can't simply disagree apparently, you have to think you're right somehow. Food for thought, the world is not all black and white, it's mostly grey. Want to whine, complain and make more demands? I don't care.

 

[Gordy327]

Can't simply disagree apparently, you have to think you're right somehow. Food for thought, the world is not all black and white, it's mostly grey. Want to whine, complain and make more demands? I don't care.

When one disagrees, one usually offer an explanation. Thats how a discussion works. Lursa explained why she disagrees and why she's right. It's you who is whining about it.

 

[Lursa]

Can't simply disagree apparently, you have to think you're right somehow. Food for thought, the world is not all black and white, it's mostly grey. Want to whine, complain and make more demands? I don't care.

It's a debate. You cannot support your position at all. This is how discussions work...and you are the one that wants it black and white...not me. That's the science part you keep desperately clinging to..."all or nothing" if it's Homo sapiens, it has rights. Sorry...that's not the case.

I didnt make 'demands,' I asked you to answer questions and refute or counter my arguments or claims. And now that I'm directly sticking to the debate, you found you dont have any answers. Is it a shock to you to see there's a whole other side to this issue? LOL it all seems brand new to you, being confronted with 'the other side.'

 

[Dayton3]

​

My question is this. Why did Alito use the "it's not in the Constitution" as the major reason why the court can take away a Constitutional right? Does he think we don't know about the 9th amendment or does he think it is wrong too? Do we really want a Justice who can't follow even the first 10 amendments?

Because you cannot ( or should not) make up "rights" out of thin air and then scream "but the 9th Amendment" in order to justify them.

I'm sure Madison himself would've never considered that..

 

[iguanaman]

Because you cannot ( or should not) make up "rights" out of thin air and then scream "but the 9th Amendment" in order to justify them.

I'm sure Madison himself would've never considered that..

Actually that is exactly what the 9th amendment says we need to do. The right to an abortion is based on the right to privacy between a citizen and her doctor and was not "made up out of thin air". Abortions were completely legal in Madison's time too.

 

[Dayton3]

Actually that is exactly what the 9th amendment says we need to do. The right to an abortion is based on the right to privacy between a citizen and her doctor and was not "made up out of thin air". Abortions were completely legal in Madison's time too.

Irrelevant. Can you prove Madison would've approved of them and believe the right to an abortion should be protected?

and note, "privacy" is not mentioned even in passing in the U.S. Constitution. You cannot simply suggest an entire right or range of rights is "implied" and use the 9th Amendment to protect it.

 

[iguanaman]

Irrelevant. Can you prove Madison would've approved of them and believe the right to an abortion should be protected?

and note, "privacy" is not mentioned even in passing in the U.S. Constitution. You cannot simply suggest an entire right or range of rights is "implied" and use the 9th Amendment to protect it.

The Bill of Rights is full of privacy rights and the 9th amendment makes it clear that they are not complete either. Who are you or Alito to claim there are no other rights to privacy but those enumerated in the amendments? It is a purely political and religiously biased decision that has no basis in American law. Basically Alito is taking his laws from the Pope, a practice that would have horrified the framers who believed religion has no place in our Govt.

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

 

[Dayton3]

The Bill of Rights is full of privacy rights and the 9th amendment makes it clear that they are not complete either. Who are you or Alito to claim there are no other rights to privacy but those enumerated in the amendments? It is a purely political and religiously biased decision that has no basis in American law. Basically Alito is taking his laws from the Pope, a practice that would have horrified the framers who believed religion has no place in our Govt.

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

If you're going to repeatedly "infer" a right to privacy even though the word "privacy" is never mentioned at all in the Constitution, then I can just as easily infer that a fetus (or baby) has an inherent right not to be killed in the womb.

 

[Gordy327]

If you're going to repeatedly "infer" a right to privacy even though the word "privacy" is never mentioned at all in the Constitution,

Do you seriously think something must be explicitly mentioned in the constitution to be legally valid or applicable?

then I can just as easily infer that a fetus (or baby) has an inherent right not to be killed in the womb.

Go ahead and make the argument then. I bet it will fail!

 

[Dayton3]

Do you seriously think something must be explicitly mentioned in the constitution to be legally valid or applicable?

Go ahead and make the argument then. I bet it will fail!

Yet Roe v. Wade has fallen hasn't it.

 

[Gordy327]

Yet Roe v. Wade has fallen hasn't it.

Unfortunately. But Roe is not the only precedent dealing with privacy.

 

[Dayton3]

Do you seriously think something must be explicitly mentioned in the constitution to be legally valid or applicable?

I think when it involves a serious life or death issue that it does have to be specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Dayton3]

Unfortunately. But Roe is not the only precedent dealing with privacy.

The word privacy appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.

No where.

 

[Gordy327]

I think when it involves a serious life or death issue that it does have to be specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

The issue is about privacy.

 

[Gordy327]

The word privacy appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.

No where.

So answer my question: Do you seriously think something must be explicitly mentioned in the constitution to be legally valid or applicable?

 

[Dayton3]

So answer my question: Do you seriously think something must be explicitly mentioned in the constitution to be legally valid or applicable?

Already answered

 

[Gordy327]

Already answered

No, you didn't. It is a yes/no answer.