(05-16-2019 03:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 03:19 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:48 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:07 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 09:49 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  But it DOES happen. It's a topic that's absolutely worthy of discussion - we are not discussing something as ridiculous as "what if a woman gets pregnant after being shot full of alien semen from a Martian death ray gun?"

0.001% - Incest
0.065% - Life of mother
0.085% - Rape

All three of these components represent statistical zero you understand, right? 0.151% combined...

0.151% isn't zero. I mean, it's 1 in 662.

But if you want to talk about "statistical zero", we can get a number considerably closer to that.

Statistics tells us that:

(1) if you have 100,000 events and,
(2) each of those 100,000 events has a 0.151% (1 in 662) chance of being X,
(3) then the chances of NONE of those 100,000 events being X is 1 in 10 to the 66th power.

That is a whole lot closer to "statistical zero" than 0.151%.

Pregnancies due to rape do and will happen. That's just what it is. It's a legitimate question as to what we should do in those situations. It's intellectually dubious to argue that those instances will never happen.

Yes, pregnancies due to rape do and will happen. But, as we've demonstrated, those cases count for a small percentage of the total number of abortions performed annually.

According to the liberal, pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, from 1973 through 2011 more than 50,000,000 abortions have been performed.

Check my math but .151% of 50,000,000 is 75,500 abortions over 38 years.

Which also means 49,924,500 babies have been killed simply for convenience.

49,924,500

75,500

Those who are pro-life understand that Americans will always favor allowing those very rare exceptions.

We also understand those who fight with all their might to continue murdering over 49.9 million people are kinda whacked.

Whacked. As opposed to those that think that a woman should have absolutely *zero* control of her body from the immediate point of time of conception. Got it.

I am coming to the realization that the NFW from conception sect is just as fing stupid as those pushing for 8th and 9th month abortions.

And both share a certain extremism in tolerance issues.

So you think the right has gone overboard in trying to protect innocent lives. Interesting perspective, not one with a lot of empathy but interesting nonetheless.

(05-16-2019 04:38 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 03:33 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 03:19 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:48 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:07 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  0.001% - Incest
0.065% - Life of mother
0.085% - Rape

All three of these components represent statistical zero you understand, right? 0.151% combined...

0.151% isn't zero. I mean, it's 1 in 662.

But if you want to talk about "statistical zero", we can get a number considerably closer to that.

Statistics tells us that:

(1) if you have 100,000 events and,
(2) each of those 100,000 events has a 0.151% (1 in 662) chance of being X,
(3) then the chances of NONE of those 100,000 events being X is 1 in 10 to the 66th power.

That is a whole lot closer to "statistical zero" than 0.151%.

Pregnancies due to rape do and will happen. That's just what it is. It's a legitimate question as to what we should do in those situations. It's intellectually dubious to argue that those instances will never happen.

Yes, pregnancies due to rape do and will happen. But, as we've demonstrated, those cases count for a small percentage of the total number of abortions performed annually.

According to the liberal, pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, from 1973 through 2011 more than 50,000,000 abortions have been performed.

Check my math but .151% of 50,000,000 is 75,500 abortions over 38 years.

Which also means 49,924,500 babies have been killed simply for convenience.

49,924,500

75,500

Those who are pro-life understand that Americans will always favor allowing those very rare exceptions.

We also understand those who fight with all their might to continue murdering over 49.9 million people are kinda whacked.

You do know they passed a law with no exceptions right? When they could have passed a law with exceptions. No matter how rare it might be, it does happen. So why pass a law with no exceptions in it.

Yes, I do understand they passed a law with no exceptions.

Because I'm pro-life I agree with no exceptions. I understand the exceptions and would be gladly willing to compromise by saying no abortions except for those exceptions if it means saving the lives of 49,924,500 innocent babies.

But I also understand that Alabama drafted a bill with a strategy in mind.

This seems to be going right over the heads of some here.

(05-16-2019 04:38 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 03:33 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 03:19 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:48 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:07 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  0.001% - Incest
0.065% - Life of mother
0.085% - Rape

All three of these components represent statistical zero you understand, right? 0.151% combined...

0.151% isn't zero. I mean, it's 1 in 662.

But if you want to talk about "statistical zero", we can get a number considerably closer to that.

Statistics tells us that:

(1) if you have 100,000 events and,
(2) each of those 100,000 events has a 0.151% (1 in 662) chance of being X,
(3) then the chances of NONE of those 100,000 events being X is 1 in 10 to the 66th power.

That is a whole lot closer to "statistical zero" than 0.151%.

Pregnancies due to rape do and will happen. That's just what it is. It's a legitimate question as to what we should do in those situations. It's intellectually dubious to argue that those instances will never happen.

Yes, pregnancies due to rape do and will happen. But, as we've demonstrated, those cases count for a small percentage of the total number of abortions performed annually.

According to the liberal, pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, from 1973 through 2011 more than 50,000,000 abortions have been performed.

Check my math but .151% of 50,000,000 is 75,500 abortions over 38 years.

Which also means 49,924,500 babies have been killed simply for convenience.

49,924,500

75,500

Those who are pro-life understand that Americans will always favor allowing those very rare exceptions.

We also understand those who fight with all their might to continue murdering over 49.9 million people are kinda whacked.

You do know they passed a law with no exceptions right? When they could have passed a law with exceptions. No matter how rare it might be, it does happen. So why pass a law with no exceptions in it.

Yes, I do understand they passed a law with no exceptions.

Because I'm pro-life I agree with no exceptions. I understand the exceptions and would be gladly willing to compromise by saying no abortions except for those exceptions if it means saving the lives of 49,924,500 innocent babies.

But I also understand that Alabama drafted a bill with a strategy in mind.

Why the left on this board can't understand THAT point is beyond me. There was a very clear reason they passed it with no exceptions and it's not because they feel that small number of women impregnated through rape should be forced to go through with it. It's meant to make the court decide when a human is a human.

(05-17-2019 07:11 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 03:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 03:19 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:48 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 07:07 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  0.001% - Incest
0.065% - Life of mother
0.085% - Rape

All three of these components represent statistical zero you understand, right? 0.151% combined...

0.151% isn't zero. I mean, it's 1 in 662.

But if you want to talk about "statistical zero", we can get a number considerably closer to that.

Statistics tells us that:

(1) if you have 100,000 events and,
(2) each of those 100,000 events has a 0.151% (1 in 662) chance of being X,
(3) then the chances of NONE of those 100,000 events being X is 1 in 10 to the 66th power.

That is a whole lot closer to "statistical zero" than 0.151%.

Pregnancies due to rape do and will happen. That's just what it is. It's a legitimate question as to what we should do in those situations. It's intellectually dubious to argue that those instances will never happen.

Yes, pregnancies due to rape do and will happen. But, as we've demonstrated, those cases count for a small percentage of the total number of abortions performed annually.

According to the liberal, pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, from 1973 through 2011 more than 50,000,000 abortions have been performed.

Check my math but .151% of 50,000,000 is 75,500 abortions over 38 years.

Which also means 49,924,500 babies have been killed simply for convenience.

49,924,500

75,500

Those who are pro-life understand that Americans will always favor allowing those very rare exceptions.

We also understand those who fight with all their might to continue murdering over 49.9 million people are kinda whacked.

Whacked. As opposed to those that think that a woman should have absolutely *zero* control of her body from the immediate point of time of conception. Got it.

I am coming to the realization that the NFW from conception sect is just as fing stupid as those pushing for 8th and 9th month abortions.

And both share a certain extremism in tolerance issues.

So you think the right has gone overboard in trying to protect innocent lives. Interesting perspective, not one with a lot of empathy but interesting nonetheless.

I'm just saying that viewing RU-86 as morally the same as a Gosnell practice is fairly warped. Funny thing each side of the extremist viewpoint views RU-86 as exactly the same as Gosnell -- albeit with different polarities.

One side has no compunction about 7th, 8th, or 9th month abortions.

The other side has zero compunction about forcing *every single* pregnancy to term.

Each of those sides is absolutely warped imo, for their own specific reasons.

I find it very interesting on one side, the absolute compassion for 6 cells, yet zero compunction for compassion when their viewpoint is essentially 'Carry it to term, *****. Your choice, your problem.'

I mean, that is the 'meany poo' translation of a previous post which noted that 'She is open to child bearing', but it is the same effect in the real world, is it not?

And I find the zero compassion on the other side as well when they think that an abortion in a even a viable situation is justified.

From my viewpoint, the extremists are very much taking over their respective ships.

(05-17-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm just saying that viewing RU-86 as morally the same as a Gosnell practice is fairly warped. Funny thing each side of the extremist viewpoint views RU-86 as exactly the same as Gosnell -- albeit with different polarities.

One side has no compunction about 7th, 8th, or 9th month abortions.

The other side has zero compunction about forcing *every single* pregnancy to term.

Each of those sides is absolutely warped imo, for their own specific reasons.

I find it very interesting on one side, the absolute compassion for 6 cells, yet zero compunction for compassion when their viewpoint is essentially 'Carry it to term, *****. Your choice, your problem.'

I mean, that is the 'meany poo' translation of a previous post which noted that 'She is open to childhood', but it is the same effect in the real world, is it not?

And I find the zero compassion on the other side as well when they think that an abortion in a very viable situation is justified.

From my viewpoint, the extremists are very much taking over their respective ships.

One extreme bill gets passed in one state house and that constitutes a takeover by the extremists on the entire issue?

I'm sorry but that i just a load of crap and you know it.

Even that Alabama bill appears NOT to be what those legislators actually desire, but are trying to use it as a tool for more reasonable limits on abortions.

(05-17-2019 08:11 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm just saying that viewing RU-86 as morally the same as a Gosnell practice is fairly warped. Funny thing each side of the extremist viewpoint views RU-86 as exactly the same as Gosnell -- albeit with different polarities.

One side has no compunction about 7th, 8th, or 9th month abortions.

The other side has zero compunction about forcing *every single* pregnancy to term.

Each of those sides is absolutely warped imo, for their own specific reasons.

I find it very interesting on one side, the absolute compassion for 6 cells, yet zero compunction for compassion when their viewpoint is essentially 'Carry it to term, *****. Your choice, your problem.'

I mean, that is the 'meany poo' translation of a previous post which noted that 'She is open to childhood', but it is the same effect in the real world, is it not?

And I find the zero compassion on the other side as well when they think that an abortion in a very viable situation is justified.

From my viewpoint, the extremists are very much taking over their respective ships.

One extreme bill gets passed in one state house and that constitutes a takeover by the extremists on the entire issue?

I'm sorry but that i just a load of crap and you know it.

Even that Alabama bill appears NOT to be what those legislators actually desire, but are trying to use it as a tool for more reasonable limits on abortions.

The extremism of the Alabama bill is equal to the extremism of the VA law.

One can look at the Alabama bill in two differing ways: 1) they are trying to push for a definition of 'personhood'; or 2) they are emboldened by a rightward swing in the SCOTUS and have pushed a FU bill the challenge the basis of Roe V Wade.

So Eric, why do you say the 'bill is NOT what the legislators desire'? Do you have some all knowing prescience into each and every legislator voting on the bill? I sure as heck dont. How can I get those super powers of yours?

Here is the statement from the *sponsor* of the bill:

Quote:“What I’m trying to do here is get this case in front of the Supreme Court so Roe v. Wade can be overturned,” Republican Alabama state Rep. Terri Collins, who sponsored the abortion ban legislation, said in an interview with The Washington Post.

So your 'more reasonable limits' is actually an overturning of RvW when you actually use the actual words from the sponsors mouth, Eric.

As for *one* extreme bill in *one* state house that is an utter mis-statement. It *is* law -- meaning more than one 'house' passed it (last I looked Alabama still had a bicameral legislature) and the governor had to sign.

Tack on the Missouri Senate 'fetal heartbeat' bill, and your 'one house' is off by 200 per cent at that point, and your states count is *only* off by 100 per cent.

And I guess you completely missed the Ohio effort.

(05-17-2019 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The extremism of the Alabama bill is equal to the extremism of the VA law.

One can look at the Alabama bill in two differing ways: 1) they are trying to push for a definition of 'personhood'; or 2) they are emboldened by a rightward swing in the SCOTUS and have pushed a FU bill the challenge the basis of Roe V Wade.

So Eric, why do you say the 'bill is NOT what the legislators desire'? Do you have some all knowing prescience into each and every legislator voting on the bill? I sure as heck dont. How can I get those super powers of yours?

Almost everyone here agrees the AL bill is too extreme, but it was your claim this was somehow proof the entire issue had been taken over by extremists.

Obvious overstatement.

I'm basing my opinion (yes, its an OPINION, not a superpower captain hyperbole) on the same thing others are basing it on, what we are hearing coming out of AL.

(05-15-2019 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  None of the SCOTUS cases have vested *any* rights to the unborn. An unborn has zero rights (fundamental or not) with respect to Roe, Casey, and all the rest.

Disagree....

From Roe
However, the Court rejected the notion that a pregnant woman's right to abort her pregnancy was absolute, and held that the right must be balanced against other considerations such as the state's interest in protecting "prenatal life."

Why does the state have an interest in protecting pre-natal life if that life has no rights at all under the Constitution?

The state only has the rights granted to it by the Constitution, right?

I understand that they don't really specify here, but the 'right to life' is pretty strongly implied by the ability to block an abortion.

We may be arguing semantics? You know law isn't my area, but the above is pretty clear to me.

I think the law in question is designed specifically to clarify this... though again, it's hard to argue that rights don't exist if the state has an interest in protecting them from being 'ended'.

(05-17-2019 01:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  None of the SCOTUS cases have vested *any* rights to the unborn. An unborn has zero rights (fundamental or not) with respect to Roe, Casey, and all the rest.

Disagree....

From Roe
However, the Court rejected the notion that a pregnant woman's right to abort her pregnancy was absolute, and held that the right must be balanced against other considerations such as the state's interest in protecting "prenatal life."

Why does the state have an interest in protecting pre-natal life if that life has no rights at all under the Constitution?

The state only has the rights granted to it by the Constitution, right?

I understand that they don't really specify here, but the 'right to life' is pretty strongly implied by the ability to block an abortion.

We may be arguing semantics? You know law isn't my area, but the above is pretty clear to me.

I think the law in question is designed specifically to clarify this... though again, it's hard to argue that rights don't exist if the state has an interest in protecting them from being 'ended'.

A state can have an 'interest in' a bajillion and one things: ozone output, concrete factories, sentencing guidelines, speed limits....

They can even have an 'overriding interest' in things.

A state having 'an interest' in something doesnt even get you to the ante in that 'rights are involved' card game.

In any case where there is a balance of rights, the Court will say: this a case that balances the rights of XYZ against the right of ABC.

For example, many of the cases in the 70s dealing with discrimination had to employ that since many of cases dealt with statutes that were based on fundamental rights under the Civil War amendments versus the 1st amendment right of freedom of association.

When there is a balancing of rights, the Court notes it and notes the specific rights. It doesnt happen often because the nature of the rights in question are such that they really dont come into conflict much.

But the 'balancing' of a right versus a state interest is *only* an indication of how far the state can 'push into a right' (you know, that 'shall not be infringed type stuff' and only government action can 'infringe').

I dont believe there has ever been a 'right' as such accorded to the unborn by the Court.

(05-17-2019 08:11 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm just saying that viewing RU-86 as morally the same as a Gosnell practice is fairly warped. Funny thing each side of the extremist viewpoint views RU-86 as exactly the same as Gosnell -- albeit with different polarities.

One side has no compunction about 7th, 8th, or 9th month abortions.

The other side has zero compunction about forcing *every single* pregnancy to term.

Each of those sides is absolutely warped imo, for their own specific reasons.

I find it very interesting on one side, the absolute compassion for 6 cells, yet zero compunction for compassion when their viewpoint is essentially 'Carry it to term, *****. Your choice, your problem.'

I mean, that is the 'meany poo' translation of a previous post which noted that 'She is open to childhood', but it is the same effect in the real world, is it not?

And I find the zero compassion on the other side as well when they think that an abortion in a very viable situation is justified.

From my viewpoint, the extremists are very much taking over their respective ships.

One extreme bill gets passed in one state house and that constitutes a takeover by the extremists on the entire issue?

I'm sorry but that i just a load of crap and you know it.

Even that Alabama bill appears NOT to be what those legislators actually desire, but are trying to use it as a tool for more reasonable limits on abortions.

Saw one article suggesting these bills were a backlash against the pro-murder bills passed in Virginia, Vermont and New York.

The "silenced" majority in abortion:

"...Our abortion crackup is a synecdoche for the political dysfunction that afflicts our politics as a whole, with activists on the extremes controlling the agenda on both sides and the reasonably conflicted majority in the middle increasingly silenced, its voice barely penetrating the debate in state houses and courtrooms...."
https://theweek.com/articles/841928/sile...ion-debate

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 01:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  None of the SCOTUS cases have vested *any* rights to the unborn. An unborn has zero rights (fundamental or not) with respect to Roe, Casey, and all the rest.

Disagree....

From Roe
However, the Court rejected the notion that a pregnant woman's right to abort her pregnancy was absolute, and held that the right must be balanced against other considerations such as the state's interest in protecting "prenatal life."

Why does the state have an interest in protecting pre-natal life if that life has no rights at all under the Constitution?

The state only has the rights granted to it by the Constitution, right?

I understand that they don't really specify here, but the 'right to life' is pretty strongly implied by the ability to block an abortion.

We may be arguing semantics? You know law isn't my area, but the above is pretty clear to me.

I think the law in question is designed specifically to clarify this... though again, it's hard to argue that rights don't exist if the state has an interest in protecting them from being 'ended'.

A state can have an 'interest in' a bajillion and one things: ozone output, concrete factories, sentencing guidelines, speed limits....

They can even have an 'overriding interest' in things.

A state having 'an interest' in something doesnt even get you to the ante in that 'rights are involved' card game.

In any case where there is a balance of rights, the Court will say: this a case that balances the rights of XYZ against the right of ABC.

For example, many of the cases in the 70s dealing with discrimination had to employ that since many of cases dealt with statutes that were based on fundamental rights under the Civil War amendments versus the 1st amendment right of freedom of association.

When there is a balancing of rights, the Court notes it and notes the specific rights. It doesnt happen often because the nature of the rights in question are such that they really dont come into conflict much.

But the 'balancing' of a right versus a state interest is *only* an indication of how far the state can 'push into a right' (you know, that 'shall not be infringed type stuff' and only government action can 'infringe').

I dont believe there has ever been a 'right' as such accorded to the unborn by the Court.

I hear you, but I don't follow you.

The state's interest in the things you mention are for the benefit of the people it represents.... promote the general welfare or any of a number of other concepts that are generically (and sometimes clumsily as you note) referred to...

There is a difference in saying the state has an interest in protecting pre-natal life and saying they have an interest in ozone output. I believe that is using the definition of the word 'interest' differently. The interest (concern) in ozone output comes from an interest (obligation) in protecting citizens, right? We don't owe an obligation to the ozone under the Constitution. It doesn't say it has an interest in the mother's well being as a result of a later term abortion, it says an interest in protecting.... life.

I agree with you that nowhere does it specifically recognize the rights of the unborn... I think this is the purpose of this law and why it specifically excludes rape and incest... it also doesn't, nor should it ever 'accord' such a right. All it can do is recognize them as they are endowed by our Creator... not the courts...

But I'm still having trouble rectifying your statement that it isn't recognizing pre-natal's right to life when it recognizes the states interest to protect it.

If the state's interest in protecting that life is so great by this point that it outweighs the mother's previously inviolate right to terminate that life... how can you argue that the pre-natal life has no recognized rights? Please don't use metaphors unless you have to (I'm notorious for doing so myself) as there are few close ones I can think of. I greatly respect your opinion here, but I'm having trouble understanding how this doesn't do exactly what I said.... and absolutely recognize and enshrine the state's 'right' to protect pre-natal life... semantics aside... I mean, I see it there in black and white. Apparently they didn't have an obligation, or the obligation was outweighed earlier in the pregnancy... but at this point, SOMETHING changed.

(05-17-2019 08:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 01:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  None of the SCOTUS cases have vested *any* rights to the unborn. An unborn has zero rights (fundamental or not) with respect to Roe, Casey, and all the rest.

Disagree....

From Roe
However, the Court rejected the notion that a pregnant woman's right to abort her pregnancy was absolute, and held that the right must be balanced against other considerations such as the state's interest in protecting "prenatal life."

Why does the state have an interest in protecting pre-natal life if that life has no rights at all under the Constitution?

The state only has the rights granted to it by the Constitution, right?

I understand that they don't really specify here, but the 'right to life' is pretty strongly implied by the ability to block an abortion.

We may be arguing semantics? You know law isn't my area, but the above is pretty clear to me.

I think the law in question is designed specifically to clarify this... though again, it's hard to argue that rights don't exist if the state has an interest in protecting them from being 'ended'.

A state can have an 'interest in' a bajillion and one things: ozone output, concrete factories, sentencing guidelines, speed limits....

They can even have an 'overriding interest' in things.

A state having 'an interest' in something doesnt even get you to the ante in that 'rights are involved' card game.

In any case where there is a balance of rights, the Court will say: this a case that balances the rights of XYZ against the right of ABC.

For example, many of the cases in the 70s dealing with discrimination had to employ that since many of cases dealt with statutes that were based on fundamental rights under the Civil War amendments versus the 1st amendment right of freedom of association.

When there is a balancing of rights, the Court notes it and notes the specific rights. It doesnt happen often because the nature of the rights in question are such that they really dont come into conflict much.

But the 'balancing' of a right versus a state interest is *only* an indication of how far the state can 'push into a right' (you know, that 'shall not be infringed type stuff' and only government action can 'infringe').

I dont believe there has ever been a 'right' as such accorded to the unborn by the Court.

I hear you, but I don't follow you.

The state's interest in the things you mention are for the benefit of the people it represents.... promote the general welfare or any of a number of other concepts that are generically (and sometimes clumsily as you note) referred to...

There is a difference in saying the state has an interest in protecting pre-natal life and saying they have an interest in ozone output. I believe that is using the definition of the word 'interest' differently. The interest (concern) in ozone output comes from an interest (obligation) in protecting citizens, right? We don't owe an obligation to the ozone under the Constitution. It doesn't say it has an interest in the mother's well being as a result of a later term abortion, it says an interest in protecting.... life.

I agree with you that nowhere does it specifically recognize the rights of the unborn... I think this is the purpose of this law and why it specifically excludes rape and incest... it also doesn't, nor should it ever 'accord' such a right. All it can do is recognize them as they are endowed by our Creator... not the courts...

But I'm still having trouble rectifying your statement that it isn't recognizing pre-natal's right to life when it recognizes the states interest to protect it.

If the state's interest in protecting that life is so great by this point that it outweighs the mother's previously inviolate right to terminate that life... how can you argue that the pre-natal life has no recognized rights? Please don't use metaphors unless you have to (I'm notorious for doing so myself) as there are few close ones I can think of. I greatly respect your opinion here, but I'm having trouble understanding how this doesn't do exactly what I said.... and absolutely recognize and enshrine the state's 'right' to protect pre-natal life... semantics aside... I mean, I see it there in black and white. Apparently they didn't have an obligation, or the obligation was outweighed earlier in the pregnancy... but at this point, SOMETHING changed.

I think we are talking abut two differing concepts of 'rights'. I am using the strictly legal concept of a right: in no underlying basis of law, nor in any case in the last arbiter of what that law is, has any right been conferred to an unborn.

There has been no legal recognition that such a right exists.

The closest thing that has been presented in the specific arena is a 'state's interest' in an unborn being born. That is because of the legal relationship being examined: an individual with such a right, and a state that wishes to push into the realm of that right (i.e. a state law that supposedly infringes that right). Those are the only two items being examined in the case of abortion rights legal decisions.

A state can assert the right of a third party in tertia pars, and this sometimes happens. For example the Trump Immigration Freezes Cases -- Hawaii, California and other states claim that they could use the right to freely travel of certain people as their basis for bringing suit. But, each state when it does so has severe standing issues (is the state a proper party to assert a right of another, or can a state assert locos parentis standing for third parties).

No abortion case has ever been brought with locos parentis standing, and no state has ever asserted that. The framing of the issue is always done in the terms 'does the State have an interest in making the particular rule', but has *never* been presented as 'the state serving as the plaintiff based on the assertion of the rights of others' for these cases.

Look, to a degree I do think that there is a certain moral basis for addressing the issues of the 'viability' standard in terms of moral rights -- does a viable fetus have a moral right to be brought forth? And the State's arguments in restriction of abortion are usually grounded in those moral rights -- Texas's basis for its recent 'need to have a hospital around' and 'need to have admitting privileges' is certainly based in the concept of such moral rights to do everything possible for certain classes of fetuses.

But such indirect moral basis does not mean there is a legal basis for such a right. The question of 'where does a right to life begin' is certainly a question that needs to be debated as a moral issue for our society. And undoubtedly a great case can be made for such a moral basis in the later stages of pregnancy.

But, as for a conferring of a legal right to the unborn -- one has never been recognized by the Court. Nor has one ever been put forth by a State that is defending its particular restriction on abortion.

(05-17-2019 08:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 01:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  None of the SCOTUS cases have vested *any* rights to the unborn. An unborn has zero rights (fundamental or not) with respect to Roe, Casey, and all the rest.

Disagree....

From Roe
However, the Court rejected the notion that a pregnant woman's right to abort her pregnancy was absolute, and held that the right must be balanced against other considerations such as the state's interest in protecting "prenatal life."

Why does the state have an interest in protecting pre-natal life if that life has no rights at all under the Constitution?

The state only has the rights granted to it by the Constitution, right?

I understand that they don't really specify here, but the 'right to life' is pretty strongly implied by the ability to block an abortion.

We may be arguing semantics? You know law isn't my area, but the above is pretty clear to me.

I think the law in question is designed specifically to clarify this... though again, it's hard to argue that rights don't exist if the state has an interest in protecting them from being 'ended'.

A state can have an 'interest in' a bajillion and one things: ozone output, concrete factories, sentencing guidelines, speed limits....

They can even have an 'overriding interest' in things.

A state having 'an interest' in something doesnt even get you to the ante in that 'rights are involved' card game.

In any case where there is a balance of rights, the Court will say: this a case that balances the rights of XYZ against the right of ABC.

For example, many of the cases in the 70s dealing with discrimination had to employ that since many of cases dealt with statutes that were based on fundamental rights under the Civil War amendments versus the 1st amendment right of freedom of association.

When there is a balancing of rights, the Court notes it and notes the specific rights. It doesnt happen often because the nature of the rights in question are such that they really dont come into conflict much.

But the 'balancing' of a right versus a state interest is *only* an indication of how far the state can 'push into a right' (you know, that 'shall not be infringed type stuff' and only government action can 'infringe').

I dont believe there has ever been a 'right' as such accorded to the unborn by the Court.

I hear you, but I don't follow you.

The state's interest in the things you mention are for the benefit of the people it represents.... promote the general welfare or any of a number of other concepts that are generically (and sometimes clumsily as you note) referred to...

There is a difference in saying the state has an interest in protecting pre-natal life and saying they have an interest in ozone output. I believe that is using the definition of the word 'interest' differently. The interest (concern) in ozone output comes from an interest (obligation) in protecting citizens, right? We don't owe an obligation to the ozone under the Constitution. It doesn't say it has an interest in the mother's well being as a result of a later term abortion, it says an interest in protecting.... life.

I agree with you that nowhere does it specifically recognize the rights of the unborn... I think this is the purpose of this law and why it specifically excludes rape and incest... it also doesn't, nor should it ever 'accord' such a right. All it can do is recognize them as they are endowed by our Creator... not the courts...

But I'm still having trouble rectifying your statement that it isn't recognizing pre-natal's right to life when it recognizes the states interest to protect it.

If the state's interest in protecting that life is so great by this point that it outweighs the mother's previously inviolate right to terminate that life... how can you argue that the pre-natal life has no recognized rights? Please don't use metaphors unless you have to (I'm notorious for doing so myself) as there are few close ones I can think of. I greatly respect your opinion here, but I'm having trouble understanding how this doesn't do exactly what I said.... and absolutely recognize and enshrine the state's 'right' to protect pre-natal life... semantics aside... I mean, I see it there in black and white. Apparently they didn't have an obligation, or the obligation was outweighed earlier in the pregnancy... but at this point, SOMETHING changed.

I think we are talking abut two differing concepts of 'rights'. I am using the strictly legal concept of a right: in no underlying basis of law, nor in any case in the last arbiter of what that law is, has any right been conferred to an unborn.

There has been no legal recognition that such a right exists.

The closest thing that has been presented in the specific arena is a 'state's interest' in an unborn being born. That is because of the legal relationship being examined: an individual with such a right, and a state that wishes to push into the realm of that right (i.e. a state law that supposedly infringes that right). Those are the only two items being examined in the case of abortion rights legal decisions.

A state can assert the right of a third party in tertia pars, and this sometimes happens. For example the Trump Immigration Freezes Cases -- Hawaii, California and other states claim that they could use the right to freely travel of certain people as their basis for bringing suit. But, each state when it does so has severe standing issues (is the state a proper party to assert a right of another, or can a state assert locos parentis standing for third parties).

No abortion case has ever been brought with locos parentis standing, and no state has ever asserted that. The framing of the issue is always done in the terms 'does the State have an interest in making the particular rule', but has *never* been presented as 'the state serving as the plaintiff based on the assertion of the rights of others' for these cases.

Look, to a degree I do think that there is a certain moral basis for addressing the issues of the 'viability' standard in terms of moral rights -- does a viable fetus have a moral right to be brought forth? And the State's arguments in restriction of abortion are usually grounded in those moral rights -- Texas's basis for its recent 'need to have a hospital around' and 'need to have admitting privileges' is certainly based in the concept of such moral rights to do everything possible for certain classes of fetuses.

But such indirect moral basis does not mean there is a legal basis for such a right. The question of 'where does a right to life begin' is certainly a question that needs to be debated as a moral issue for our society. And undoubtedly a great case can be made for such a moral basis in the later stages of pregnancy.

But, as for a conferring of a legal right to the unborn -- one has never been recognized by the Court. Nor has one ever been put forth by a State that is defending its particular restriction on abortion.

Yeah, I'm afraid we're talking past each other. We'll have to do this over a cocktail.

The courts don't confer rights. Rights exist, except as given up to the state. The state often assumes powers not specifically granted to it and Many supreme court decisions decide if that is okay or not. They do not create or assign 'new' rights... they allow or don't allow infringement upon rights.

Do you agree that the court issued a decision that says that a womans right to an abortion is in the constitution... but at some point, that right goes away? That point for the purpose of this discussion is 'viability' of the fetus.

SO my question remains... and we can talk about this over a drink...

Is there any right you can think of that we lose that isn't because of some version of conflicting rights of others? So if the fetus has no rights at any point, where is the conflict of rights? Why does the mother lose her right to privacy at viability?

(05-17-2019 10:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yeah, I'm afraid we're talking past each other. We'll have to do this over a cocktail.

The courts don't confer rights. Rights exist, except as given up to the state. The state often assumes powers not specifically granted to it and Many supreme court decisions decide if that is okay or not. They do not create or assign 'new' rights... they allow or don't allow infringement upon rights.

Do you agree that the court issued a decision that says that a womans right to an abortion is in the constitution... but at some point, that right goes away? That point for the purpose of this discussion is 'viability' of the fetus.

SO my question remains... and we can talk about this over a drink...

Is there any right you can think of that we lose that isn't because of some version of conflicting rights of others?

Not that we lose them, but that the assumed right doesnt extend as far..... certainly.

I have a right to require a warrant to search my house..... except when there are exigent circumstances... or except when agree to a search.

I have right to be represented by counsel...... except when I dont explicitly exercise that right.

I have a right to bear arms..... except when they are not 'weapons in common use'.

I have a right to freely exercise religion...... except when my rites call for the sacrifice and torture of cute puppies.

I have a right to free speech..... except when I commit fraud..... except when I defame someone..... except when I disclose the location of the super secret military base..... except when I violate a copyright held by another.

I have a right of free association...... except when I meet and plan a bank robbery with others...... except when I am released on parole and cannot associate with known felons.

All of these limitations, but not associated with the 'rights of others'.

Quote:So if the fetus has no rights at any point, where is the conflict of rights?

There is no conflict of rights. There is a right to an abortion (a right to privacy) *subject to* appropriate interests of the state. And that level changes based on the 'level' of the right involved. With a fundamental right, that level is that the state has to show one or more absolutely compelling reasons to interfere with (infringe) that right ('strict scrutiny'.

Quote:Why does the mother lose her right to privacy at viability?

Because the state has shown a legitimate and compelling interest in protecting the potential life, among a few other reasons. But she doesnt 'lose' the right, as the compelling interest disappears when a fetus is unviable or the mother's health is at risk.

But a state's 'compelling interest' is not grounded in the right of a third party.

The following is the portion in Roe dealing with this issue:

Quote: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.

(05-17-2019 08:11 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm just saying that viewing RU-86 as morally the same as a Gosnell practice is fairly warped. Funny thing each side of the extremist viewpoint views RU-86 as exactly the same as Gosnell -- albeit with different polarities.

One side has no compunction about 7th, 8th, or 9th month abortions.

The other side has zero compunction about forcing *every single* pregnancy to term.

Each of those sides is absolutely warped imo, for their own specific reasons.

I find it very interesting on one side, the absolute compassion for 6 cells, yet zero compunction for compassion when their viewpoint is essentially 'Carry it to term, *****. Your choice, your problem.'

I mean, that is the 'meany poo' translation of a previous post which noted that 'She is open to childhood', but it is the same effect in the real world, is it not?

And I find the zero compassion on the other side as well when they think that an abortion in a very viable situation is justified.

From my viewpoint, the extremists are very much taking over their respective ships.

One extreme bill gets passed in one state house and that constitutes a takeover by the extremists on the entire issue?

I'm sorry but that i just a load of crap and you know it.

Even that Alabama bill appears NOT to be what those legislators actually desire, but are trying to use it as a tool for more reasonable limits on abortions.

The governor signed it.

(05-17-2019 11:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not that we lose them, but that the assumed right doesnt extend as far..... certainly.

I have a right to require a warrant to search my house.....

Couldn't possibly disagree more with this whole section

Everything except the puppies clearly involve a conflict of rights... from your right to speech interfering with my right to not be victimized... to planning to steal someone else's property....

More on this later because your perspective is imo backwards here....

Quote:

Quote:Why does the mother lose her right to privacy at viability?

Because the state has shown a legitimate and compelling interest in protecting the potential life, among a few other reasons. But she doesnt 'lose' the right, as the compelling interest disappears when a fetus is unviable or the mother's health is at risk.

But a state's 'compelling interest' is not grounded in the right of a third party.

The following is the portion in Roe dealing with this issue:

Quote: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.

Here are the varying perspectives. We seem to disagree primarily on where rights come from. You seem to be saying that the constitution and courts grant rights... and I'm saying they are inherent in us unless we give them up to the state.... or I suppose let the states take them from us by passing a law and not challenging it in the courts. The preamble to the bill or rights tells us that this is not a granting of rights, but merely an attempt to increase confidence that the government won't become over-bearing by specifically listing a number of very fundamental and important rights... AND saying that anything not granted to the government is retained by the people... and the Preamble to the constitution says that we are endowed by our creator with all these rights and that we give up certain ones in order to form a more perfect union.

This is from your quote:
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.

How can you read that as anything BUT a conflict between the right of a woman to have an abortion and the interest of the state to (even if among other things) protect potential life? The conflict is right there.

So I think we have to agree to this point....

and now we're merely debating whether that 'interest' comes from rights inherent in the potential life (my position) and if I'm reading you correctly, some other area where we've not recognized the rights of the unborn (even in a tertiary way) but instead we have for some reason given the state the authority over potential life. THAT is the decision I'm looking for. Where does that interest that you quoted come from other than right here and now? If you say that Roe was that moment, that's fine... anyone seeking to expand abortion rights still needs that authority to be taken away.

(05-18-2019 06:05 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  The governor signed it.

Of course he does. If he doesn't, it doesn't get challenged in the court. This wasn't symbolic, I suspect they simply knew/wanted to make sure that it would be challenged. Even moderate Republicans would challenge it on the basis of no rape/incest. Let's not pretend that in this day and age, it wouldn't cross a few extreme democrat's minds to let this bill stand for a few months so they could run against the aftermath.

(05-18-2019 01:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 11:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Not that we lose them, but that the assumed right doesnt extend as far..... certainly.

I have a right to require a warrant to search my house.....

Couldn't possibly disagree more with this whole section

Everything except the puppies clearly involve a conflict of rights... from your right to speech interfering with my right to not be victimized... to planning to steal someone else's property....

More on this later because your perspective is imo backwards here....

Quote:

Quote:Why does the mother lose her right to privacy at viability?

Because the state has shown a legitimate and compelling interest in protecting the potential life, among a few other reasons. But she doesnt 'lose' the right, as the compelling interest disappears when a fetus is unviable or the mother's health is at risk.

But a state's 'compelling interest' is not grounded in the right of a third party.

The following is the portion in Roe dealing with this issue:

Quote: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.

Here are the varying perspectives. We seem to disagree primarily on where rights come from. You seem to be saying that the constitution and courts grant rights...

The courts more 'outline' the boundaries of the rights described or 'implied' (as in recent years) in the underlying Constitution. That is the 'legal' definition of the role of the courts.

Quote:and I'm saying they are inherent in us unless we give them up to the state....

I applaud that from moralistic point of view of 'rights'. From a legalistic point of view that is pile of oatmeal mush. As I said, I think the issue between us hinges on that distinction.

Quote:... AND saying that anything not granted to the government is retained by the people... and the Preamble to the constitution says that we are endowed by our creator with all these rights and that we give up certain ones in order to form a more perfect union.

And you touch on a very important dichotomy present in legal theory. Are 'rights' the ones presented to us and ascertainable by the text, or are there 'hidden' rights that just require a tad more searching until we come to a 'real fun' societal insight as to 'what it should be.' And it roughly outlines the issues between a 'living Constitution' theory and a textualist theory of Constitutional interpretation.

Quote:This is from your quote:
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.

How can you read that as anything BUT a conflict between the right of a woman to have an abortion and the interest of the state to (even if among other things) protect potential life? The conflict is right there.

There certainly is a conflict. But the textual substance never once refers to the rights of *anyone* *but* the mother. The conflict is specifically framed as the tension between the boundary of a right that cannot be infringed, and an interest of a state that could be an infringement.

I understand the implication that there is another 'right' in conflict there, and not only do understand the implication, I see basis for it. But, in the terms of the law (especially for a deplorable textualist like me) -- words matter. The singular fact that no other right has ever been elucidated by the Courts, and there are no 'positive' indications of any such right in the underlying document not just *indicates* to me, but *tells* me that for all purposes there is *no* other right within the *legal* framework being considered that is existent.

And Ham, I agree with you wholeheartedly that moralistically there is *a right*, especially following viability. But *legally* speaking there is no such right to rely on.

Now as for a 'searching' for other rights within the framework, I have a serious problem. Morally speaking, I am all over a 'right to privacy'. And in some respects I agree that there is *some* indication within a combination of portions of the Constitution that allows one to ascertain it in a 'legal' sense (i.e. right to associate, 3rd amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment all touch on aspects of a personal 'zone' that the government should have to have extraordinary reasons to come into.)

But having such a 'hidden right' *is* problematic for a textualist like me. Having a Court expand it to things like abortion is absolutely over the top. I think Roe v Wade in terms of its 'gee this is a good thing, lets find a fundamental right to it' is absolutely dangerous activism of the worst sort. I think Roe is one of the absolute worst rulings the Court has put out since the early 1940's, i.e. the ones that chunked out the rights of the Japanese internees with impunity.

On the other hand, there are many policy arguments contained within Roe that might be good policy (I know, I am a very small minority in this board). But the means to empower a policy through the 'finding of a fundamental right' is grotesque in my opinion.

By the way Ham, I will be more than happy to host you for cocktails if and when you make it back down to Texas.

(05-18-2019 02:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Here are the varying perspectives. We seem to disagree primarily on where rights come from. You seem to be saying that the constitution and courts grant rights...

The courts more 'outline' the boundaries of the rights described or 'implied' (as in recent years) in the underlying Constitution. That is the 'legal' definition of the role of the courts.

Quote:Yeah, I'm still going to disagree with you 100% here. The court is to limit the government, not the people.

From the preamble:
The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The BOR declares certain rights so that it is very clear that the government is limited, and restricts the government. It then later says “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”

So the constitution clearly delegates powers from the people to the government... restricts those powers... and all powers not delegated remain either with the states or the people (depending on the Constitution of those states)

[quote][quote]
and I'm saying they are inherent in us unless we give them up to the state....

I applaud that from moralistic point of view of 'rights'. From a legalistic point of view that is pile of oatmeal mush. As I said, I think the issue between us hinges on that distinction.

This is not morals, but a clear reading of the Constitution. If you're saying that the courts have flown far from this perch, okay... but still, this would be the argument by those seeking a true Constitutional interpretation.

Quote:And you touch on a very important dichotomy present in legal theory. Are 'rights' the ones presented to us and ascertainable by the text, or are there 'hidden' rights that just require a tad more searching until we come to a 'real fun' societal insight as to 'what it should be.' And it roughly outlines the issues between a 'living Constitution' theory and a textualist theory of Constitutional interpretation.

So here it becomes clear to me what you're talking about.
The rights (and restrictions) presented are made obvious and the founders thought that these were so important as to become enumerated... The preamble specifically says that they were specifically listed in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the government) powers,

I see this in a third light. The Constitution isn't a living document in the way that some speak of it... It doesn't live to 'find people's rights'.... it lives to 'restrict the government's powers'

Laws give the government power, and the SCOTUS' job is to make sure that those laws aren't infringing upon rights. In this way of course, you have to discover that right... but if you take what is stated in the Constitution, that ALL rights exist within us (the ability to literally do anything at any time to anyone)... and that we give up certain ones (like the right to steal or kill) in order to form a more perfect union.

Quote:There certainly is a conflict. But the textual substance never once refers to the rights of *anyone* *but* the mother. The conflict is specifically framed as the tension between the boundary of a right that cannot be infringed, and an interest of a state that could be an infringement.

I understand the implication that there is another 'right' in conflict there, and not only do understand the implication, I see basis for it. But, in the terms of the law (especially for a deplorable textualist like me) -- words matter. The singular fact that no other right has ever been elucidated by the Courts, and there are no 'positive' indications of any such right in the underlying document not just *indicates* to me, but *tells* me that for all purposes there is *no* other right within the *legal* framework being considered that is existent.

Fair... and I think the purpose of this law, without the exceptions, is intended to bring about specifically that result. It creates a situation where the courts are obviously going to decide that the state CAN restrict abortion, and without the exception, are going to have to at least discuss what is only implied in RvW.

Quote:And Ham, I agree with you wholeheartedly that moralistically there is *a right*, especially following viability. But *legally* speaking there is no such right to rely on.

No, but SOMEWHERE in there we have given the state the power to limit abortions. This is what I clearly see in RvW, which doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution. If they want the court's 'hands off my uterus', then they're clearly going to have to over-rule this power/right/obligation/interest.

Quote:But having such a 'hidden right' *is* problematic for a textualist like me. Having a Court expand it to things like abortion is absolutely over the top. I think Roe v Wade in terms of its 'gee this is a good thing, lets find a fundamental right to it' is absolutely dangerous activism of the worst sort. I think Roe is one of the absolute worst rulings the Court has put out since the early 1940's, i.e. the ones that chunked out the rights of the Japanese internees with impunity.

On the other hand, there are many policy arguments contained within Roe that might be good policy (I know, I am a very small minority in this board). But the means to empower a policy through the 'finding of a fundamental right' is grotesque in my opinion.

By the way Ham, I will be more than happy to host you for cocktails if and when you make it back down to Texas.

Cocktails are a given my friend.

As to the rest, It doesn't say all rights not enumerated don't exist, it says all powers not delegated reside with the people.... Hence my position that while the right to an abortion was recognized by RvW, it already existed... so too was the power to regulate abortion 'taken' from the people by RvW.

That's what laws do. They restrict people. You should be free to do anything not restricted by law... and those laws imo should be written so as to only limit you from harming (this can have a broad definition and is the devil I think you're describing) others.

I agree 100% that the decision was incredibly sloppily written in no small part but that it does what you say and 'enumerates' additional rights... but clearly it also enumerates a states power not specifically granted to it elsewhere. We need to go away from this and go back to a situation where we write laws to restrict people from harming other people... and that the laws must not infringe upon people's rights without a compelling 'communal' interest... like keeping us safe from crime. That is, in my mind, a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the powers of the state

At any rate... and feel free to respond again... but I really appreciate this mental exercise and your expertise in the area.

Thanks for the conversation and education

(05-19-2019 11:16 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:And you touch on a very important dichotomy present in legal theory. Are 'rights' the ones presented to us and ascertainable by the text, or are there 'hidden' rights that just require a tad more searching until we come to a 'real fun' societal insight as to 'what it should be.' And it roughly outlines the issues between a 'living Constitution' theory and a textualist theory of Constitutional interpretation.

So here it becomes clear to me what you're talking about.
The rights (and restrictions) presented are made obvious and the founders thought that these were so important as to become enumerated... The preamble specifically says that they were specifically listed in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the government) powers,

I see this in a third light. The Constitution isn't a living document in the way that some speak of it... It doesn't live to 'find people's rights'.... it lives to 'restrict the government's powers'

You hit it on the head here, imo. And this fits in precisely with the words of Madison, and each side of the Federalist Anti-Federalist debate at the time. One caveat -- it doesnt live to 'restrict the government's powers', it lives to 'delineate the power of the government'. With the inclusion of the 14th Amendment, the term 'government' now includes state governments and all of its offshoots regarding certain limits.

The Constitution is a document which, at its core, defines the governance of our society. But the folks who jumped at the chance to rewrite our base foundation of 'what our government is, and what it can do' had *just* fought their way out of a system of government that absolutely ran roughshod over another basis of ordered liberty, that is ran roughshod over individual rights as they perceived them.

The bare bones of the Constitution laid out the framework and limited powers of the system of government. But there was a sharp division among the drafters re: the issues of government power and the idea of how a government might act re: individual rights. Some thought the idea of 'limited' enumerated powers, and the structural division of power between the branches would provide that protection. And some called those ideas 'parchment barriers' (Madison's phrase, actually) to an out-of-control majority rule outlook to individual rights.

In fact this division of viewpoints seemed to be a pretty big obstacle to ratification, especially in closely divided states like New York and Virginia. So a pledge was made by the Federalists to provide a parcel of amendments after ratification that would be structural limitations on the government targeted to its role in individual rights.

So, as part and parcel of the First Congress, Madison drafted and presented the Bill of Rights. And when you note the language used, it is clear that they are not presented as an ala carte listing of what rights are supposedly held, but as a structural and procedural limitation on what the new government cannot do. (i.e. the language 'shall not be infringed', the infringer being the new Federal government).

But it had to wait to the passage of the 14th Amendment which made the application of the Bill of Rights effective as to the individual states. This action also indicates that the Bill of Rights is not a 'listing of rights', nor that any other right in the Constitution is granted as a result of the Constitution. The 'rights issues' are solely procedural --- they delineate actions that a Federal government cannot do (later expanded to any state government or state-based power by the 14th).

And this history is part and parcel why I think the 'textualist' approach is the best way to interpret the Constitution. It is a 'field manual' on the operation of government. Period.

If we as a society think a 'new right' is important to us as a society, it is *our* imperative to make sure that the sought after right is defined and included in the 'operator's manual', as opposed to fishing around in the 'operator's manual' for a magical reason to include such a new right in the present.

This is simply because the Constitution is nothing more than such an 'operator's manual' to begin with.

(05-19-2019 12:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If we as a society think a 'new right' is important to us as a society, it is *our* imperative to make sure that the sought after right is defined and included in the 'operator's manual', as opposed to fishing around in the 'operator's manual' for a magical reason to include such a new right in the present.

This is simply because the Constitution is nothing more than such an 'operator's manual' to begin with.

great response and thanks for the debate

This is precisely why I am against all of these laws that (as an example) create lists of people protected by this law or that... as opposed to having laws that protect 'we the people'... Laws and sub-groups have become political chattel. Sure, motivations can play a part in sentencing... but a crime against one of us is a crime against us all.... and we shouldn't be paying the government (which is essentially what ends up happening) to protect our little subgroup.

200 years ago, blacks and women really weren't considered 'people' in practice and over the years we have expanded the accepted definition to mean all people... and there still may be a bit more of this (I think this is what the right wants here)... but I don't think we need new laws JUST for those people, but instead simply an acknowledgement that 'this group' is part of 'the people'. I think a lot of laws would be more obvious if we started there.