A Question Of Those On The Left...

[snafu]

....Plus I'm utterly sick and tired of the over abundance of liberal bashing on this board. It would be nice to have one thread (or even a whole section) where it simply wasn't allowed.

Here ya go.

Phood Phreak's

 

[hugo]

Put on my red liberal hat for a moment:

From Roe v. Wade's decision:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [410 U.S. 113, 154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

The 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No protection for the unborn under the 14th

The 9th Amendment:

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

The fact abortion is not enumerated as a right in the Constitution does not mean it is not a right of the people.

Abortion laws were quite lax during the colonial era. It was really in the latter half of the 19th century where harsh anti-abortion laws were passed by many state legislatures. The founding fathers were basically liberals in the classical sense of the word. They generally opposed government limits on individual actions; they generally opposed governments interfering with an individuals "pursuit of happiness." Yes, when the Constitution was formed it basically only applied to white men. The 14th Amendment corrected that error. Women are now entitled to engage in their own pursuit of happiness...which may not include birthing a child.

 

[wez]

Another excellent post brimming with common sense.

 

[phreakwars]

Another excellent post brimming with common sense.

That's one of the reasons I like Hugo, he doesn't fall into an "US .vs THEM" type category on his opinions.
.
.

 

[ImWithStupid]

The 14th Amendment:

The 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No protection for the unborn under the 14th

Define, "born" as it Constitutionally applies here, please.

 

[wez]

Define, "born" as it Constitutionally applies here, please.

Well, it doesn't say conceived..

I would say born = out of the womb, into the world.

 

[snafu]

That's one of the reasons I like Hugo, he doesn't fall into an "US .vs THEM" type category on his opinions.
.
.

Oh your sadly mistaken. He' s one of us.

 

[timesjoke]

Define, "born" as it Constitutionally applies here, please.

Excellent question, we know if a child is "born" of two American parents in a foreign country we still have our citizenship and enjoy the protections of the 14th so the intent is clear to mean an American, not only someone birthed or where they were birthed.


Another point to remember on roe-v-wade is here:

Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.

Here the Court clearly supports protecting "potential life". This is recognizing the unborn child as life, and a living human in America from an American parent is what????????

An American.

 

[jokersarewild]

I'm actually pretty sure that if they're born in another country, they aren't American citizens. I could be wrong, but it would require a "naturalization" process, since they weren't "born", as the requirement so clearly stated.

And since we're supposed to be looking at the constitutionality of this...

And the constitution says that unborn children have no rights...

It's pretty safe to say that abortion is legal, and should be, as from conception up until moments before birth, it's not yet born, and retains no rights as an American citizen.

However... pulls out the Declaration Hm..."The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"...well, it's a good thing the Declaration doesn't govern us, eh?

 

[ImWithStupid]

I'm actually pretty sure that if they're born in another country, they aren't American citizens. I could be wrong, but it would require a "naturalization" process, since they weren't "born", as the requirement so clearly stated.

Appearantly Federal judges don't agree with you.

Judge says McCain is a 'natural born citizen' - MSNBC Wire Services - MSNBC.com

And since we're supposed to be looking at the constitutionality of this...

And the constitution says that unborn children have no rights...

Show me where it says in the US Constitution that unborn children have no rights

It's pretty safe to say that abortion is legal, and should be, as from conception up until moments before birth, it's not yet born, and retains no rights as an American citizen.

This is all moot anyway. I never once questioned the legality of abortion. The question is what is the definition of "born" as it applies to the 14th Amendment.

 

[phreakwars]

Kinda makes me wonder what would happen if science perfected growing human life forms in a petri dish/ incubator... then what would the definition of "BORN" be.. hmm... something to think about.
.
.

 

[Fullauto]

Kinda makes me wonder what would happen if science perfected growing human life forms in a petri dish/ incubator... then what would the definition of "BORN" be.. hmm... something to think about.
.
.

read 'A Brave New World'
Sir Huxley

 

[hugo]

Define, "born" as it Constitutionally applies here, please.

Define "define", please.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Define "define", please.

That depends on what the definition of the word, "is", is.

 

[wez]

That depends on what the definition of the word, "is", is.

"Please"?


Please explain..