Well that's a big part of the problem right there. Judges going more on case precedent than on the Constitution.

Given that rape is the most under-reported and often difficult to prove crimes, especially in the case of date rape, the idea of rape being an exception is a joke. In the case of he said/she said, how does one make that ruling about aborting?

I don't believe in abortion as a form of birth control, but I have two college-age daughters. Since 1 out of 4 women on college campuses experience some form of sexual assault, I will support their right to choose.

And that's what even people who are pro-life generally are fine with abortions in the case of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. But all those combined make up a very small percentage.

Just because a right is not specifically enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This is why I despise the argument used by some to follow the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers, and which they were bound by the political constraints and realities of their epoch, and the document they crafted reflect as such.

Safe to say it's 2012. Not 1787. We consider slavery to be sorta wrong, yet it was considered status quo acceptable back then. (Whether acceptable evil to placate the southerners, and protect Founding Fathers' own capital investment in slave labor like Washington.)

To say the least, nobody in America craves slavery's comeback. Also when was the last time the government forced troop quartering in your house during peacetime? After 1787, that "contemporary issue" has never mattered what so ever for Americans. You definately won't meet a modern conservative who gives a shit about it.

Of course the irony was that despite the heavy disapointing flaws of Washington or Jefferson or Franklin and so forth, they were much more broadly intellectually open in the matters of religion and science. Secularists tend to literally interpret Jefferson's view on church & state, and the religious special interests hijack his religiousity as a post-mortem stamp of approval for their policies.

Which of course ignores the fact that Jefferson was (publicly at least) a very devout man who also was a devout follower of science. And he didn't see any conflict what so ever between the two. If anything, he took the correct Christian view of science: a field of study in trying to figure out how God does his job.

I like to believe he would vomit and vomit if he saw the current American religious right. If not for their insistence of replacing science with theology (instead of hybriding the two), he would be despaired at their championing of ignorance.

(Of course as much as I admire Jefferson, he at times failed by his own intellectual standards like believing the French Revolution was the European continental American Revolution. Which it wasn't, and he was unfortunately blind to it. Nor unfortunately him using pseudo-science bullshit apparently to excuse his own practice of slavery.)

Babe, if a woman aborts, she is killing her child; she is killing her flesh and blood. What in God's name makes the life of a child as an issue of rape or incest less valuable than your life? Nothing does. Her decision to kill her child is a function of convenience. As I posted above: dress it up in all of the emotion you want to. But it's just convenience.

As far as precedent goes, I support it. As members of our National community, we must have faith in the continuity of justice. There are enough variables associated with administering justice; to depart from precedent just adds to disconuity and diminishes our confidence in our justice system.

Well, the justices on the Supreme Court had to base their loony decision to allow women to have the child within them killed on some Constitutional/legal ground. So, as activist judges often do, they stretched and twisted the meaning of part of the Constitution to their liking in order to fit the bill.



With your kind of thinking, the interpretation of the Constitution becomes so stretched and warped, that our laws will eventually look nothing like it's a original self. The fact that abortion was based on "right to privacy" shows just how much people can twist the Constitution to their liking. And since it's 2012 and not 1776, shouldn't we be a little more "evolved" and "sophisticated" in how we treat unborn children. Yes, yes, I know, a woman's "right to choose" (cough...bullshit) is more important.



I'm glad your at least honest in admitting that. The "pro-choice" crowd has worked very hard to almost turn abortion into a good thing. But it is what it is.

I was assuming that you would recognize a phrase taken almost verbatim from the Bill of Rights.

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

Do you get that? It means that just because the Constitution lists certain rights it doesn't mean that there aren't a universe of other unlisted rights that are enjoyed by the people of the United States. That's not some "liberal activist" twisting-which evidently means anything you disagree with. It is text from the Constitution itself.

We don't live under a system of codes. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are not the laws of the land, much as some idiots might wish them to be.

Whether you like it or not fortunately the Founders were smart enough to put something in the Constitution that was intended to prevent just the sort of argument that claims that because a right is not specifically listed it can therefore be violated or does not exist. Thus the "right to privacy" can be established both via 5th and 14th amendments but also the 9th amendment.

Even so-called originalists disagree about how far the 9th amendment should go. The Founders left it vague on purpose. So saying the "right to privacy" is not listed in the Constitution misses the point. The point is rather why one would think that a document that goes to great lengths to strictly limit the powers of the states and federal government and lists all sorts of enumerated and unenumerated rights of the individual to be left alone wouldn't recognize a right to privacy.

Despite my stance on abortion, I support the courts' use of substantive due process as the context for some of their decisions. I trust the justices to make prudent decisions. Despite the abhorrent consequences of Roe v. Wade, the basis of the decision was proper.

I realize you subscribe to the line of thinking that supports the assertion women have some inherent "right" to abort their unborn children, that gays have some inherent "right" to marry, and the like. It's debatable, to say the least, whether these so called "rights" really exist.

I seem to remember there being something in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution about "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Bottom line, rather than pretend the Constitution says something, or can say something, that it doesn't, things beyond what it says should be left up to the states. Even if you're philosophically "pro-choice," you can't legitimately argue that the case it was founded on really has merit.

Anyway you cut it, to argue that the "right to privacy" statement in the Constitution somehow gives a woman the "right" to have her unborn child killed is beyond ludicrous and is one of the biggest demonstrations of the hypocrisy of the left.



No, it wasn't. As I said above, and as even many "pro-choice" people admit (if they're honest), the issue should have been left up to the states.

All the above said, I really do need to go back to my rule of only engaging in OC-related topics on these forums.

Ivy,

May I ever have any painful terminal disease, I would also like a bit of whatever pro-choicers are smoking.

Somehow in their well-attested objective & unbiased assessment of the situation, they've concluded that it's the woman, not the fetus, whose rights are in a life and death struggle on this issue.

But such poor bizarre unrequired methodological assessment is to be expected from the so-called left.

That's the problem. The woman's "right" not to have a baby, even though she, in all likelihood, chose to engage in an act that often results in pregnancy, is deemed more important than the life of that baby. If you cut through all the politically correct tip toeing, it's an act of supreme selfishness based on convenience.

Of course, that's where they then get into the argument of "Is it a baby or not?" Which can ultimately lead to the recent article I posted by the intellectuals from Oxford, which I noticed no "pro-choicers" wanted to touch.

Then, Ivy, you do agree that a woman should use birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, right?

Yeah, including an aspirin pill. Held tightly between the knees.

Yes.

To be perfectly honest, with all of the diseases out there, including HIV and AIDS, an unwanted pregnancy from being raped is actually the least of a rape victim's problems.

Olivant, considering the extreme trauma that a rape victim suffers, forcing her to carry her rapist's child to term because you view abortion as a matter of "convenience" shows that you have no clue what a rape victim goes through.

But not her child?

Motherhood is not something that should be forced on a woman. To do so is akin to slavery.

Oh, I see. Living as a slave versus killing one's child.

Again, while I would allow abortions in the very rare cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger, I'm reminded of a line from the 1995 movie Rob Roy, where Liam Neeson's character finds out that his wife has been raped.


Mary: "Robert, there is more. I am carrying a child and I do not know who is the father."

Robert Roy MacGregor: "Ah, Mary..."

Mary MacGregor: "I could not kill it, husband."

Robert Roy MacGregor: "It's not the child that needs killing."

You can't or won't make an substantive argument without personal attacks, unbased assumptions and creation of various straw men. This is funny. For the record as I mentioned upthread I am pro-life. I think abortion is wrong. I also don't believe I've written anything here for or against gay marriage. I'm unsure of the legal/moral arguments about that.

That said, for both gay marriage and abortion, it's not enough to just make an legal argument that boils down to "Eeew. God doesn't like it and I don't either."

From a pure political point of view I certainly hope that conservatives continue to make such inchoate arguments more intensely as the election approaches. They will get their brains beat out in the fall election among independents and women voters. Should Santorum get the nomination, that's a guaranteed win for the President. And considering demographic changes in the South, even places like Texas or Alabama could start to come into play for Democrats in 2016 and 2020. So I think conservatives should back off or at very least rework some of their rhetoric.

The Ninth Amendment already tells us that other rights exist and these are reserved to the people. How can that be any more plain? Because of how the cases were decided it would be difficult to throw abortion back to the states without doing the same thing for contraception. I am sure some conservative "activist" judges would like to do so but I don't see how. They can only rule on the cases brought before them.

These unlisted rights are debatable which is why we have judges to interpret the Constitution. It's not a code. There are conflicting claims and vague generalities contained within.

Conservatives want to shrink government just small enough to fit in a bedroom or a woman's body. This is one of the biggest demonstrations of the hypocrisy of the Right.

There is no rational or logical argument against gay marriage or gay rights that stands up to any sort of applied scrutiny. None what so ever. If abortion, one could argue that neither side is wrong in an endless abyss of moral ambiguity, gay marriage it's black & white.

Actually I have to thank right-wingers for the tide going in the favor of Gay Rights. Because they overreached and abdicted their Moral Authority, whether it be the Vatican's pathetic demoralizing failure to take responsibility over their child abuse, or the countless religious leaders/politicians revealed as private bald-face hypocrites. Or most symbolic perhaps, Bristol Palin a spokeswoman for Abstinence. (Bin Laden for Toleration!) All that isn't the only reason, but it's the core reason.

(Same reason why Obama won't tackle the black church leaders against gay rights. He's afraid of losing a significant chunk of that vote this fall. Yet to say the least, they lack the moral authority as well.)

It's funny but IvyLeague bitched earlier about liberals using the courts to hijack the country (an unchanged mantra since 1969), but with the exception of the responses to Prop 8...all the other states have passed gay marriage or civil union laws from the legislature. Even DADT was repealed by Congress and not by executive order.

Of course the right-wingers cry tyranny and want referendums. Imagine if ballots were held whether Italian or Irish or Jewish immigrants in the 19th century should have civil rights themselves or hold office. Or imagine if states much earlier could vote between accepting Mormons as law-abiding citizens or driving them out with violence in the name of Jesus. (Not that they needed a vote to do the latter, but regardless.)

There is something remotely retarded about using direct democracy about granting (or taking away) rights to minorities. We don't live in a direct democracy, we live in a republic. The Federalist Papers argued that as much in why the Constitution should be passed in 1787 because it would propegate the majority's will while defending the minority's rights.

Besides California plays that bullshit referendum game to the poin that Sacromento's lawmakers pussy out of taking a legislative risk. Do right-wingers really want to be like California?

I'm not arguing that other rights don't exist. I'm saying that to base the legality of abortion on "right to privacy," as mentioned in the Constitution, is a stretch, to say the least. Which is why this issue should be left up to the states and not decided by nine justices on the bench. Those on the Supreme Court who made this decision overstepped their bounds.

If the legislature of a state passes something like gay marriage, I don't like it but I can't argue with it. Well, unless there is a referendum by the people, which should hold more weight. But that's not saying the gay marriage crowd isn't still trying to get their agenda done through the courts. It's only a matter of time before the issue will reach the Supreme Court.

And, for the record, I'm certainly no Evangelical.

Why? With that logic, American Idol has more weight than Prop 17 on parking lot fees.

For that matter, why even bother with electing representatives then? Besides one notion I do agree with the Founding Fathers: the masses are an unruly mob with fickle tastes, very short attention spans, and refuse to accept responsibility for the most part. Elitist? Absolutely, but nobody will disagree with that diagnosis. Imagine if they ran foreign policy.



Considering how they've put off deciding on HCR till next year, and the same with Prop 8...I'm not sure. After Bush/Gore, the Court has really tried to avoid big epic controversial loaded cases. (Though this didn't stop them from making baffling bad decisions like Kelo, Citizens United) Doesn't mean they won't, but it's not a slam dunk.

(Notice how they've not tackled Roe/Wade directly. It's funny but the right-wingers' mantra of letting legislature decide shit and not courts, that ideology might've hampered those right-wing judges from making decisions that the base wants.)



I never said you were.

But they are a minority with way too much power and influence on government considering their size. Is anybody outside of that clique worried to death sick about married gay people? I would say most either don't mind or don't care.

Well maybe Al Qaeda, but that's an exception.

We can argue about this ‘till the cows come home. There are justifications on both sides which tend to be moral ones; but none are substantively legal arguments. The 9th and 10th amendments add nothing to the Constitution except seed bed for argument. Even the remaining ones leave us wanting more. For example, the IV amendment prescribes the probable cause basis for the issue of a warrant, but it does not state when a warrant is necessary despite it advisement that persons et al are to be secure against unreasonable(?) searches and seizures. That’s one huge reason why we have the common law and follow precedent.
One reason that Madison and Hamilton eschewed a list of rights was because it could be an endless list. Also, what is the purpose of such a list? People during the founding period believed it was to be a bulwark against the potential oppression of the new central government they were creating and sanctioning. They did not view it as a bulwark against the predations of each other. That was (and is) viewed as a function of statutory law. Therein lies the rub. Federal or state law could constrain or proscribe abortion (as it did prior to Roe). But the 14th amendment (and the accompanying substantive due process) rears its ugly head quite frequently and therein lies another rub. Its application frequently is framed as the result of a moral decision.
In the end, we can’t see (without a major personal effort) an unborn child anymore than we can see the person who is to be executed in our state or another state. We assume that if one is to be executed that it is deserved and just. Yet, many pro-life advocates support the death penalty almost with alacrity. I oppose both abortion and the death penalty; the former because it destroys a life for convenience sake (yes Babe, convenience) and the latter because so many findings of guilt are uncertain.

Bork referred to the 9th amendment as an "inkblot". These unenumerated rights have to be ethical and accepted by society. You can't have people claiming rights out of thin air (ex. I have a right to a million bucks and a mercedes!!).

Whether enumerated or unenumerated, rights extend to those who can't speak for themselves...namely the unborn.

Oh, Lilo!


Well, As I've said time and again, I'm pro choice. Saladbar once made a great argument that we don't make parents or anyone else for that matter donate body parts to save their children. This is quite the same. You can't make a woman donate 9 months of her time, body, etc. to something she doesn't want to do, because as Babe said, that's slavery. A person should not be forced to take care of someone in need. It's immoral not to help, but still it's a choice and a right.