Check out the threads on airstrikes against terrorists. People are extremely confused by the difference between “legal” and “moral.”
Skinner certainly cast some doubt on it, though, wouldn’t you say?
Not at all. Skinner dealt with the inequity of how it was carried out. Think more like Furman v. Georgia. It didn’t say that the death penalty was unconstitutional, merely unconstitutional as it was implemented. The fact that forced sterilizations were carried out in the 70s and up to the 80s shows that Skinner did not, as many think, make forced sterilization illegal.
It doesn’t cover abortion, and it really doesn’t even cover privacy. It lists some specific protections that one can infer an intention to protect privacy in general. Getting from privacy to allowing abortion is torturous, and always was.
The Supreme Court can say what the Constitution means, but they cannot say what is says. That would be like me telling you that Mitt Romney said in his 47% comment that he knew he was going to lose. That may be what I took from it, but it isn’t what he actually said.
The only difference is that the Supreme Court’s interpretation has the force of law behind it.
I think that in addition to the slam dunk of substantive due process from case law, the ninth amendment would work for textualists as well. Bearing children to term is such a basic right that it has never even been questioned because it’s so basic.
The difference is that those deprived of life (at least theoretically) guilty or are the enemy.
How do you propose we wage war then so as to do so without causing civilian casualties?
Whose denying a woman’s right to protect themselves from murder? I’m pretty you mean the right to control their body here. And all laws are because of certain beliefs behind them-for example laws against theft are founded on the belief that theft is wrong.
The Church is not a monolithic bloc.
Do you truly think that the tens of millions of pro-life people around the world are primarily motivated by a subconscious desire to control women and yet none declare this openly?
I’m not sure where this is going…
What I would love to see is the Supreme Court (okay, maybe not this particular court) take a shot at creating a Ninth Amendment test.
The Ninth Amendment exists so it must mean something. And it has a lot of potential. But it’s so broad nobody can ever agree on what a Ninth Amendment right is. If somebody claims something is a Ninth Amendment right somebody else can equally plausibly argue that it isn’t. We need some guiding method to narrow down the possibilities and make it possible to determine when something has risen to the level of being a Ninth Amendment right.
You have made my point on some of the issues, One Yes, it is impossible to wage a war without civilian’s being killed, so if a woman has an abortion is called murder in the same context so is war, or any self defense.
.A woman’s right to self preservation should also be a right for her,only she and her doctor can decide this. How can one murder a fertile egg? Many abortions could be prevented, if a woman has access to birth control, but many believe because they were taught that birth control is sinful, and are ruled by fear and guilt.Yet having a child that they can’t care for is frowned on by the same so called right to Lifers. Too many want a woman to bear a child ,because it is their belief, but then once born, do not want to pay the taxes, help her with free services, etc. once born them it becomes a whole different story.All of a sudden “Life” isn’t so important.
A chice person is also Pro-Life, they seem to care for the already born and try to see they have a decent ,wanted, loved and prosperous life!
Too late to edit. I did mean a Choice Person.
I disagree Griswold allowing married couples to use birth control due to privacy and then Eisenstadt decriminalizing the use of birth control by unmarried women in the session prior to Roe v. Wade is hardly “torturous”.
This paragraph is grammatically and rhetorically incoherent.
Roe v Wade applying privacy to abortion for certain trimesters is torturous.
Life would be so much easier if Griswold and Eisenstadt were because of a 9th Amendment reproductive right to not have kids. The all Roe would have to answer is: is reproduction when you give birth or when egg/sperm meet? The Warren Court probably would have said that under the 14th Amendment it was at birth. Arguement could be made for fertilization or fetus viability but that’s better than the twists of logic we have to deal with now.
Goldberg did raise the Ninth Amendment issue in Griswold. The problem is that most people don’t find Ninth Amendment arguments persuasive, for the reasons I mentioned above. Nobody can come up with a standard for determining what a Ninth Amendment right is. So Douglas’ “penumbras and emanations” argument, while far from universally accepted, was considered to be stronger than a Ninth Amendment argument.
The trimester portion has been replaced by viability, the trimester portion was not as torturous as you claim though, the concept of “the quickening” was quite well established and the privacy rights were balanced between the actions of a doctor and the states interest in life, not family planning. A first trimester abortion is quite a bit safer than birth, you may not agree with the courts opinion but without explanation on why it was “torturous” I am going to state your claim is but hand-waving.
I believe the 10th amendment is pretty clear on the subject that if the issue is not listed in the constitution then it is left for the states of people to decide upon. In such, the constitution does not give the power to regulate abortion to the federal government but to the states or the people and that’s all the constitution has to say on the matter.
I believe that there is a reason behind the process of making amendments to the constitution and the ratifying of such, specifically where the states become involved. I believe the state’s involvement in the process is due to the fact that any amendment made to the constitution is essentially the states turning over their power to make laws/govern over a specific subject area to the federal government. This is my reasoning behind the 10th amendment’s clarity to what the federal government can and cannot govern.
So what is reality is that their decision doesn’t meet your false diametric views on the subject.
many who are pro-choice and anti-abortion who can agree that there is a huge difference between preventing a fertilized egg from implanting and aborting at week 41.
I am not sure exactly which side you are on but to say the warren court would have allowed week 41 terminations is a bit hard to swallow.
It does not fit at all with the court documents. I think the intended rhetorical effect of the argument that it is so is to preclude a conclusion that conception is the point where it is improper to terminate a single cell.
Sorry about that! Most people know what I mean. Romney(in the 2d debate) likened the way Obama and Reagan handled the economic slow down, forgetting that Obama was saddled with the huge debt of 2 costly wars, with no way to pay for them…Reagan did not. Is that clear to you?I didn’t realize this was a grammer test. I apologize for that.
Constitution does not state that it’s unlawful for STATES to ban abortion correct?
Not sure I ever understood why this is an argument to be had?
The rebuttal of ‘well it encourages women to cross state lines to achieve their goal.’ So…? Taking a drive one weekend is a horrible thing?
Anyways, if you reside in one state and go to another to have an abortion, you should be governed by the state you live in. This would stop the so called distressed teenage girls running away from home to go have an abortion.
I think I’ve missed where this conversation was going.
The paragraph I didn’t understand was about comparing collateral damage in a war to abortion rights. I don’t understand how you could draw an analogy between the two, but I had trouble understanding the entire paragraph so I’m not sure what point you were trying to make.
That would be an unusual legal principle. Suppose you were pulled over for driving 75 in a 65 mph zone in Ohio and you explained, “It’s okay. I’m from Pennsylvania and the speed limit there is 75 mph.”