VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:27:27 12/18/02 Wed
Author: Lawshark
Subject: It's true...really!
In reply to: bfny 's message, "Is that all true?" on 11:03:47 12/18/02 Wed

The part that some people would disagree with is that you shouldn't be able to read rights into the Constitution. That's what the whole debate is regarding strict constructionist v. liberal intent. The liberal intent folks like Earl Warren & Co. thought that if you held the Constitution up to the light, turned it a certain way and squinted, you could see a "right" to privacy, abortion etc. I think a right to privacy is a GREAT idea...but I DON'T think it's a constitutional right. If we want it to be one, we better amend the damn thing. Right now the right to privacy and abortion is an amorphous one which is why it's always subject to so much debate and litigation...Roe v. Wade was simply a piss poor decision in the way it was drafted...even if you agree with the outcome. They bootstrapped a right to abortion from a bootstrapped right to privacy which they "inferred" (really!) from the "penumbra" (or "shadow") of other constitutional rights. Basically (I'm simplifying it...it's been a few years since I read the decision) the court in Roe v. Wade said that the fact that the Bill of Rights prohibits the forced quartering of soldiers in your home, prevents you from having to incriminate yourself, prevents unreasonable search and seizure, etc. demonstrates an overarching theme of preserving an individual's privacy. Therefore, since this theme pervades the Constitution we can infer that a right to privacy exists. Since a right to privacy exists, we can infer that a private decision to abort is also protected. Huh? Just piss poor. Also, the decision relies heavily on when an embryo becomes viable...which is a serious slippery slope considering that "viability" is tied so much to medical advancements.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.