Alito confirmed!

[Berzerker]

*hopes for the newly Conservative court to overturn Roe v. Wade, invalidate many uses of the Commerce Clause and then drop dead for the second coming of the Warren Court*

But wasn't the Warren court complicit in expanding the commerce clause?

Of course pro-lifers care about women. Half of the abortions they are trying to prevent would stand a fair chance of one day becoming women.

Hehe, good one

Just out of curiosity, can someone quote to me where in the constitution it states a right to privacy? TIA

The closest langauge would be found in the 4th Amendment outlining conditions under which the state can invade our privacy. And in the 5th Amendment which refers to limits on government deprivation of our liberty or property. You mis-understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights, it does not give us rights, it limits if and when the state can infringe upon them (and the 9th Amendment matters very much). If you read the Declaration of Independence you will see their philosophy of government, our rights come from the Creator, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government is created to protect these rights. If privacy does not exist under the vast umbrella those inalienable rights create, then why not? I would love to see Scalia explain why privacy isn't covered by liberty. Slaves dont have privacy, free people do.

But of course, this is not really about privacy (2-3 people are involved). Well, I guess it is until the Constitution is amended to afford protections to the unborn. So far only born people are covered.

The government can't take our rights away by legislating them away.

You mean the state cant write a law that deprives you of your liberty, and then enforce the law and punish you for exercising your liberty? What is the term for that? Not penumbra but some other term. You do realise this is violated all the time?

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


Simply because people have a right to think differently than you and they have a right to speak out about it?

Nah, such "rights" do not exist

[StarLightDeath]

quote:
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


The government can't tell you what to think or say or stop you from thinking or saying anything. Your private thoughts are your own.

quote:
Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


The government can't put soldiers in your house, without your consent, except in war.

quote:
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The government can't search you or your belongings just because it wants to.

quote:
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


See 1st Amendment. In addition, they can't just take your property, liberty, or life.

quote:
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Just because a right to privacy isn't explicately stated doesn't mean we don't have it.

quote:
Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


The government can't take our rights away by legislating them away.

quote:
Amendment XXI

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.


We have a right to put alcohol in our bodies.

I'm reading this list and I find it an amazing look into how so many laws outside the realm of the constitution get passed. I can even see, through this attitude, why there have been incidents where judges were arrogant enough to cite foreign law.

All you're doing is stringing together a bunch of amendments that could be defined as privacy, but do not state as such. The key thing is that this is limited to the individual rights of a person and it doesn't cover the actions you commit on another person. The real point of this debate is whether or not a fetus is actually a person, and it is obvious that you don't believe that to be the case. So I ask you, when does this occur oh enlightened one? I wasn't aware the SCOTUS had the power to determine what is human and what is not.

I especially love the alchohol point...if that's the case then we can easily apply that to illicit drugs as well. Does this mean then that I have a right to do crack whenever I please?

See 1st Amendment. In addition, they can't just take your property, liberty, or life.

The government can't search you or your belongings just because it wants to.

So then would a fetus be considered property? Or maybe it is a belonging? And apparently the taking of a life is a right of women...oh wait, I'm sorry, you already made it clear that fetus's aren't really life until they're born. Just so we're clear too, I'm an atheist and I don't believe in a soul so you aren't going to be able to lable me as some religious zealot. This is about morals, and you sir have none.

[Zkribbler]

So I ask you, when does this occur oh enlightened one? I wasn't aware the SCOTUS had the power to determine what is human and what is not.

The Legislatures of the various states should have tackled this problem, but they did not. Then the Supreme Court had this case come up, and someone had to make a decision.

[Gatekeeper]

Nice cut-and-paste, DinoDoc.

I followed the link and read the entire opinion piece; the writer does an excellent job of breaking things down to a strictly statistical level (although I'm wondering if she had access to newer numbers other than 2000 data). Looking at it via numbers only, it really doesn't seem like it'd be a big deal overriding Roe v. Wade. But, of course, try telling that to the women who would be affected. To me, the writer is basically saying, "Hey, women. You're going to be OK. Unless you live in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kentucky, Mississippi or Missouri (and maybe a dozen other states, depending on the vagaries of politics). If that's the case, well, nationally, you don't factor in much. But you don't count anyway. You're just numbers, and small ones at that."

My native state is South Dakota. There is a single abortion/family planning provider — Planned Parenthood, in Sioux Falls. It's in the very southeastern part of the state. It's picketed often, yet women come there from the rest of the state and surrounding states. South Dakota is also making it so that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, *all* abortions — save those that threaten the life of the mother — would be illegal. No exceptions for rape or incest.

Maybe it wouldn't withstand a court challenge, but that's besides the point, which is: Why the hell can't our lawmakers (in South Dakota and nationally) pass common-sense laws? I mean, would it really kill them (no pun intended) to pass laws that allow for abortions in cases of lives being threatened, rape and/or incest? To pass sex education laws that not only teach abstinence, but also provide our teenagers with a legitimate sex education besides a "Don't do it before marriage!" admonishment? Good God. We're talking about randy people here. Six billion and counting! Yeah, maybe it sucks to admit it, but there's going to be some "fun" on the side, and for those who want to take the risk, it's only fair that they know full well what they're getting into. And only a rounded sex education can do that.

If nothing else, it will be interesting to observe (the whole abortion issue and the "new" U.S. Supreme Court). Once abortion is dealt with, they'll go after birth control. Heck, they already are.

Gatekeeper

[Odin]

the 14th amendment implies you must be born to have rights, so fetuses have no rights. The right to privacy is implied in the 9th amendment. those two points was the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade IIRC.

[Ted Striker]

Swwwweet!!!!

Let the wiretapping begin!!!

Oh wait, it's already started!

Let the wiretapping continue!! Maybe we can get video feeds now I bet the guys back at NSA have the Paris Hilton sex tape Part 3!

[Ramo]

20 Democrats voted for cloture.

Chaffee, who voted for cloture, is probably going to still get NARAL's endorsement.

[notyoueither]

I'd vote for a clot in that process too.

[Saras]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
We have a right to put alcohol in our bodies.

W00T!1!!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Nice cut-and-paste, DinoDoc.

I'm glad you think so.

Looking at it via numbers only, it really doesn't seem like it'd be a big deal overriding Roe v. Wade. But, of course, try telling that to the women who would be affected.

They are likely already traveling hours to get an abortion in states likely to reinstate bans. Post-Roe that wouldn't change.

[Drogue]

Could someone who knows the constitution a lot better than a silly Englishman like myself tell me if anything in the constitution about a person's right to their own body? I accept the issue of whether or not the foetus has rights, ie. whether or not it's alive yet, however surely if the mother has rights to her own body, she can ask for the foetus to be removed without killing it? I mean, get the hospital to induce birth and look after the foetus in the hospital?

While the foetus may not be able to be killed, nothing has a right to life if it cannot live without feeding off another. The state decides to take in babies that are abandoned and look after them, as the mother has the ability to put it up for adoption. Surely that is also true before birth, the mother can put the foetus up for adoption and remove her support from it?

[Gibsie]

I'm sure having to travel tens of hours at much greater cost rather than just a few hours to somewhere else in the state would matter to those affected. But hey, it'll never concern you, so I guess this is a good opportunity for you to say "my gives a **** is broken" (I've not seen that said recently ).

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, the legislation DOES NOT take into consideration that these aren't cars or produce. These are real mothers and real fetuses. There are consequences to interfering with the woman's right to choose and if the state isn't prepared or even interested in dealing with those consequences then the legislation is bad and will make matters worse.

Ok, so you have a 'real' fetus when you say that the mother has the right to kill the fetus, but you don't have a 'real' fetus when you say that she has the right to life? I agree that there are consequences to preventing abortion, just as there are consequences to permitting abortion. Where we disagree, is whether the unborn child ought to have the right to live as any other person, not over the consequences of banning abortion.

Gee, how'd I know you'd through a lame strawman out like that? A fetus is a blob of cells.

Yet you say that abortion ought to be permitted in the cases of severe deformity. How can a blob of cells, be deformed?

While it is heart-wrenching that the already-born have to suffer through their ailments, they've already been born and already have exposure to Human experience. They are no longer blank slates waiting to be painted upon.

Okay, I have to ask how one determines whether someone is a blank slate? There are a considerable number of philosophers that ask certain questions, particularly surrounding norms in human behaviour that seem to appear well before birth, and without the influence of society or childrearing.

How, if these children are tabula rasa, could we account for their individuality when they are born? For example, if a child knows who her mother is, can one explain this, if she is tabula rasa when born?

A fetus can be spared the misery of a handicapped life, the already-born cannot; killing them is just killing them, not sparing them. Their souls are already scarred from pain and suffering, killing them only serves to darken your own soul. All we can do for them is aleviate some of the misery.

So, then you believe we cannot relieve these born people of suffering since they have already suffered. We cannot prevent suffering, we can only prevent life. That is what you have uncovered here, that suffering, regardless of deformities, or disabilities is always part of life. Why should we take this opportunity from these children before they are born, if we sincerely believe that killing people to relieve them of future pain is wrong?

As a Christian, some among you believe in justifiable murder. In my view, sparing a fetus from a life of medically-determined misery is enough justification to terminate if the mother and father choose that course. It's a matter of how much support they can give or others willing to step up to the plate for them can give. I don't see any evidence of mass-adoptions by the pro-life crowd to take care of these kinds of pregnancies.

You should be thankful then to be perfect. Not all of us are blessed with a body that works properly. How can one draw the line that one form of suffering is sufficient enough to kill someone? When you are missing an arm or a leg?

[Ben Kenobi]

While the foetus may not be able to be killed, nothing has a right to life if it cannot live without feeding off another. The state decides to take in babies that are abandoned and look after them, as the mother has the ability to put it up for adoption. Surely that is also true before birth, the mother can put the foetus up for adoption and remove her support from it?

Assuming you have the right to remove your support from someone. How does this justify an abortion where you shred the child with a suction vacuum machine?