User Panel
Posted: 8/26/2004 3:39:52 PM EDT
Please do not debate the abortion issue here! I was just wondering in a nutshell what was the reasoning behind the decision. What part of the Constitution was cited?
|
|
None--an imaginary "right to privacy" not found in the Constitution. Judicial fiat is an extremely dangerous thing.
|
|
The 9th Amendment makes that perfectly clear: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." But.... the SCOTUS was still wrong in their ruling that banning abortion infringed on this unwritten "right to privacy". |
|
|
taggged for when i come back with beer and popcorn since i know this is going to turn into a big long debate
|
|
Ok so it had nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is considered a person? What I'm trying to figure out is why is there opposition to the new federal law that makes it a double murder if you kill a pregnant woman. I could see their point if this somehow undermined the basis of the Roe V. Wade decision, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
|
|
There's nothing to debate here. I just want info, nothing else. |
|
|
Liberal baby killers.
They want to make abortion legal until age 18. CRC |
|
Murder is a state crime. If it were to have been argued as a murder issue, it never would have gone to the Supreme Court. Punishment and definition of what is or is not murder is a state power and responsibility. The more recent ruling by the Supreme Court made this very clear.
The only thing I am aware of that could make a murder a federal issue is if it met "hate crime" requirements. |
|
You would do well to read the decision--it is a textbook lesson in "convoluted logic" if there ever was. TheMacallan--yes, you are right, of course--I could have been more clear. I (eagerly) understand the IX Amendment--and just meant the decision did not fit the <unenumerated> "right to privacy."--in my strongly held opinion. I've never studied it, but the "right to privacy" is something I am perfectly willing to NOT hold as absolute--in spite of my adamant and vicious (if necessary) hold on the various BOR enumerated rights. |
|
|
The right to keep & bear arms doesn't seem to exist despite hte fact that it clearly is in the Constitution. And the right to freedom of speech appears to apply to pornography, but not to political speech. Certainly not any political speech that John McCain doesn't care fore. But the right to privacy no where mentioned in the BoRs or Constitution appears to be the most important law of the land. That, and the seperation of church and state right, which also doesn't appear any where in the BoRs. |
||
|
There are no rights defined in the Constitution. It is a fallacy perpetrated by the government for the explicit reason to infringe.
If the Constitution enumerated rights a debate would ensue as to what those rights specifically meant. Something the designers of the Constitution understood perfectly but we fail to understand today. The Constitution is a document that outlines those powers granted to the government by the people. It explicitly catalogs the rights of citizens that our Founding Fathers felt were so important that they listed them as a reminder. These rights are essential to our freedom; they are so sacred that we are going to list them in order to quell any debate on the issue. If you believe your rights are defined in the Constitution then you can only deduce that you have very few rights to begin with because there are none listed but those in the Bill of Rights. We can never maintain our liberty until all of us understand the basic concept of the Constitution and pass it to all those we can. www.restoretherepublic.org |
|
BINGO! The government didn't give them to me and they sure as HELL aren't going to take them from me. |
|
|
The "right to privacy" was an extrapolation of the 4th Amendment protection against unlawful searches & seizures; supposedly in the spirit of the intent of the 4th. Call it judicial license, if you will. I understand that Harry Blackmun basically spelled out his intentions in some of his writings before he even pondering the case, so the fix was already in.
Abortion as a form of birth control is a trait of a cruel & unconscionable mind, IMO. Still, I do think that abortion should be legal in certain cases involving life-threatening circumstances & rape. I don't believe it's reasonable to force someone to bare the child of her attacker against her will. Pregnancy does involve a woman's body, & so I think some level of rights should belong to the woman in that case. However, I don't think such a right should be absolute. Specifically, I think the test used to determine whether a person is brain dead should be applied to abortion. If an unborn child's brain wave activity becomes detectable, knowable in existence, then this fact should be a reasonable basis for blocking an abortion in that event. There has to be a point during pregnancy when we must all agree that there's a person going on there, & so it should be hands off. In regard to the argument that life begins at conception: this view is based on a religious vantage, & is not universally shared, even in the medical community. The presence/absence of brain wave activity, OTOH, is universally accepted as the valid standard for judging if/when a person is no longer alive, so it would seem reasonable that this same, generally accepted test could also be applied as the standard for blocking an abortion. Seems a reasonable compromise. The again, hot-button issues never make for compromise. What was I thinking? |
|
Roe is not based upon any specific written provision of the Constitution. In Roe the Court extended the right of privacy first "discovered" in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. That was the infamous decision in which Justice Douglas found that the Constitution had "penumbras formed by emanations" from the specific written provision. Griswold struck down state laws that made the sale of birth control to married couples illegal.
The Court later expanded Griswold in Eisenstadt v. Baird to cover the procurement of birth contol by non-married individuals. In Eisenstadt the Court held that the state had no business involved in a decision so intimate as involving the decision "to bear or beget a child." At that point, Roe was just waiting to happen. One interesting point about Roe is that all previous abortion cases failed to ever reach the SCOTUS since they were always moot by the time the appeal got that far. It takes way more than 9 months for a case to get all the way through the appeals process. Roe managed to get a Court hearing, even though Norma McCorvey was no longer pregnant when it got that far. She had delivered two years before the decision. In fact, McCorvey many years later became an abortion opponent. Thanks for the chance to write this. Privacy rights was my area of concentration during my Doctoral studies. |
|
Perhaps I am a no law school attendin' dumbass, but I see a significant right to privacy in the 4th ammendment. The document doesn't have to say 'green', when it gets there by including a mix of yellow and blue.
Regardless of your opinion on abortion, the right to a large degree of privacy free from government meddling does exist. |
|
|
Here's the decision. Read it yourself.
Edited to add excerpts from the opinion:
|
||
|
You will have to read the opinion to believe it. It is the most amazing dog's breakfast of home-made half-assed reasoning you will ever see in a legal opinion. It is the apotheosis of a priori jurisprudence. It is, completely apart from the outcome a thoroughgoing abomination.
I have not read the opinion in years, but when I last did so, the conclusion I reached apart from that already stated was that the court deliberately avoided relying on the 9th Am., which would have been the logical place to find (or manufacture) the right they declared because they were smart enough to realize that predicating a widely read decision on that amendment would raise the specter of actual freedom for the citizenry, which was an intolerable possibility. This is despite the fact that the only place the Constitution could be deemed to recognize a right of privacy is in the retention of autonomy set out in the 9th Am. It is among the worst decisions ever rendered by the USSCt, from a jurisprudential standpoint, ranking up there with the Wheat Cases and the other court-packing retrenchment cases of the 30's in terms of outright dishonesty. Moreover, it absolutely reeks of the arrogant prissiness, counterfeit precision, and absurd pretense to intellectual rigor that so often characterizes the work of judicial activists. Whatever you think about abortion, the majority/plurality should have been doused with gasoline and set alight on the steps of the Capitol for their shameless assault on the Constitution, reason, and the rule of law. |
|
|
|
|
Then you found it where the Court did not. The right of privacy was found to extend from provisions of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth. Of course, what they really used was substantive due process, though Justice Douglas specifically denies this in the opinion. You should read Griswold. Griswold v. Connecticut |
||
|
I have to agree with FLAL1A. Miller wins as laziest decision in Court history. It is obvious they expended ZERO effort in researching that decision and writing the opinion. The intellectual dishonesty of Roe is staggering. How anyone could believe the discussion of how abortion bans always were meant solely to protect the life of the mother, or how the Hippocratic Oath proscription of abortion really did not mean what it said, is beyond me. In grad school even my professors who supported abortion did nothing but criticize the shoddy reason and total disregard for historical accuracy found therein. |
||
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.