Hey, if abortion is only legal in cases of incest or rape, won’t that lead to an increase in the number of false reports of incest and rape? I know that if I had an adult sister who wanted an abortion, and the only way she could get one legally was if it was a pregnancy caused by incest, I would say I fathered it if it would help - incest isn’t illegal, family members who would even know about the abortion would be told the truth.
Whether people feel abortion should be protected like free speech and free religion is irrelevant. Those are in the constitution and abortion is not. If people want to add an abortion amendment they are free to do so.
I did not say no one I said most people. My estimate is 70% of the people do not care about this issue, which I think qualifies as most people.
Your estimate is based upon what, exactly?
70% is based on: 50% of Americans do not vote if they really cared about this issue they would vote. In 1992 Ross Perot earned 19% of the vote and he was agnostic on the issue so anyone who really cared would not vote for him.
50% Plus 19% equals 69%, I rounded up to 70.
Tell me puddleglum: If the FBI tapped your phone line, while having no reason to suspect you of a crime, would you perceive that as a violation of your rights?
What if the government passed a law prohibiting you from using condoms. Even in the privacy of your own bedroom. Would that violate your rights?
What right, exactly?
See, there’s no “right of privacy” expressly mentioned in the Constitution. I expect most folks would agree that we have that right, though. Don’t you?
Please refer to the 9th Amendment, which expressly says that the list of rights in the Constitution is not intended to be complete or exclusive.
puddleglum…I’m pro life…but your line of “reasoning” really shows a less than complete understanding of constitutional law and legislation. I can believe and argue that Roe is crappy law (crappy even besides the policy difference)…but the non existense of an “abortion amendment” to justify your position is plain silly…and your logic to postulate a 70% apathy rate on abortion borders on the insane,by your “logic”, you could say the voting populice is apathetic about damn near any issue out there…
The first example would be against the protection against illegal search and seizure. The second example is also not in the constitution but not germane. I would refer you to the 10th amendment which gives powers not delegated to the federal govt. to the states.
Another cite for the 70% figure, a Gallup poll on this issue was done on April 2, and those who said that a candidate must have their opinion on this issue was 15%, leaving 85% who would vote for someone who held a contrary view.
I’m not so sure about that “right of privacy”…FBI, NSA, CIA, 1 million and 1 computer companies that know where your computer has been.
But to imply that people have a right under the Constitution to an abortion… I don’t think you have a good basis in the 9th amendment. You could press that to any lengths of “victimless” (though pro-lifers will argue with you on that point) crimes.
Perhaps you were not trying to draw a line between the two, in which case I apologize for oversimplifying things.
In the Roe decision…Justice Blackmun (author of the majority opinion) essentially created a new “right” out of the 14th Amendment.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/privacy/
"His carefully crafted opinion failed to identify a specific U.S. constitutional guarantee to justify the court’s ruling. Instead, he based the decision on the right to privacy protected by the due process clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. In effect, the court was enforcing a right that the Constitution did not specifically articulate. "
I was not relying on the lack of an amendment for my reasoning, just pointing out that there could be an amendment if people felt the need for one.
Remember the OP mentioned rioting in the streets which implies a great deal of passion for this issue that does not exist. I do think the public is generally apethetic about issues. Do you think as many people will vote as watched Survivor?
Just because a justice says there is a right does not mean there is one. Just read the document and there is a part about right not specifically enumerated.
Well… errr… uhhhh…
Thanks beagledave, (for my thing that I learned today)
From the Fourth Amendment:
Hmmm. Don’t see anything in there about telephone lines. Seems to me that once those electrons have left your house and are out on the phone lines, they’re no longer part of your “person, house, papers or effects.” Seems like from a “strict constructionist” perspective, your telephone conversations would be fair game once they leave the house.
Or could it be that you are recognizing an implied protection attaching to private communications?
See, not every right is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. Nor should it be so. Nor did the framers intend it to be so. They intended the Constitution to be a living document, not an exhaustive recitation of our rights.
I refer you again to the 9th Amendment:
What do you suppose that language means?
To go from papers and effects to phone lines seems to me a logical step.
Your interpretation of the 9th amendment seems rather broad what about a right to molest children or drown puppies?
Abortion was around when they wrote the constitution if they had wanted it in there they would have put it in.
Puddleglum-so what if abortion was around? Just because they didn’t want it in doesn’t mean jackshit.
The FF didn’t want women or blacks voting either…what’s your point?
What is your interpretation of the 9th Amendment?
When women and blacks got the right to vote they changed the constitution, they did not pretend the rights had always been there and had just been overlooked.
My interpretation of the ninth amendment is that it is essentially meaningless.
Roe v. Wade isn’t based on the 9th but the 14th, right?
This is a whole different thread but, the 14th says that what applies to federal government in the bill of rights applies to the states.
It’s Meaningless?
Why so, puddleglum?
If one ammendment is meaningless, aren’t they all?
:rolleyes:
You gotta love the strict constructionists who claim that one of the original ten amendments to the Constitution (you know, the Bill of Rights?) is “essentially meaningless.”
glum, I’ll ask you what I asked jmullaney in another thread: Being a constructionist, which amendments–specifically the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth–do you think should be repealed to achieve harmony with the intents of the Framers and the text of the body of the Constitution? And which Framers, anyway? How do you determine original intent when there where so many original intentions? Should we be returning to the days of the three-fifths compromise?
jmullaney: The right to privacy has been broadly construed to exist in the Fourth Amendment and Ninth Amendment, and applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, per the “penumbra of rights” outlined in Griswold. Roe extended from Griswold, though the logic is a bit shaky. Hope that helps.