|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
10-12-2012, 09:09 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
 
|
|
#2
10-12-2012, 09:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
abortion is a sensitive subject. I'm my opinion, Roe vs wade is law, lets all move on. Though i certainly understand where pro-lifers come from.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#3
10-12-2012, 09:21 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes - let's move on. I responded above - the tie in is to the debate.
|
|
#7
10-12-2012, 04:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
10-12-2012, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
When you talk out of both sides of your mouth, while pretending to be an altar boy...you're going to aggravate people. In other words, you're a douchebag. Ooops, guess I lost the argument.
|
|
#9
10-12-2012, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#10
10-12-2012, 09:50 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If life does not begin at conception - no murder has occurred. The door of course swings both ways. Do you have a counter-argument, devoid of insults, upon which to prove this point? I would suggest that the aggravation stems from an emotional reaction to the possibility, however remote, that maybe I'm right. That means that abortions those people know of might have been murders after all. That's a tough thing to accept. The insult didn't win the argument for you - you didn't expect it to I'm sure.
|
|
#11
10-12-2012, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
calling people murderers, trying to make others live by your rules-that's inflammatory. you see, having a right is one thing....you can choose whether or not to engage in whatever right you are free to exercise. a right being in existence doesn't mean a single person will ever be forced to exercise that right. take that right away-well, you're potentially affecting a lot of people, aren't you? and you're trying to take away that right because of your opinion. how does your opinion hold more weight than mine, or anyone's? as for calling people murderers, how does that further your argument? what do you hope to gain by that? who made you the arbiter?
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#12
10-12-2012, 11:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
our constitution doesn't specifically mention much at all, does it? it's up to the justices to see if a right exists under what is currently named. that's how they ruled 'right to privacy', it's also how they've decided on cases involving separation of church and state issues, since that also isn't explicitly stated. nullification was attempted by south carolina about 180 years ago- no one's attempted it since, with good reason.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#13
10-12-2012, 11:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
here's an excerpt from an article regarding the unenumerated 'right to privacy':
The right to privacy isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution, but the US Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental liberty deserving protection because privacy is implied in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process Clause). The judicial concept of "Substantive Due Process," holds that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause is intended to protect all unenumerated rights considered fundamental and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," among these the right to privacy. Use of Substantive Due Process is considered judicial activism, in that it seeks to limit the scope of laws that undermine personal liberty, even if the law doesn't address a right specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In the past, (Lochner Era: c.1897-1937, second industrial revolution) Courts used Substantive Due Process in a way that reduced individual protection from exploitation by businesses and the government, such as protecting the "right" of the individual to negotiate contracts with an employer by holding minimum wage and work conditions laws unconstitutional. Today, Substantive Due Process is used to protect the individual against exploitation or legislation that creates an undue burden on individuals, or on an identifiable group or class of citizens. The Supreme Court first declared an individual's right to privacy in the case Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965), which overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting doctors from counseling married couples on the use of birth control. The Court held the state had no legitimate interest interfering in communication between a doctor and patient, that the nature of the discussion was private. Griswold set the precedent used to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade, (1973) and to decriminalize intimate sexual practices between consenting adults in Lawrence v. Texas, (2003).
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#14
10-12-2012, 12:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
as for 'unenumerated rights' i turned to madison (just finished reading a new book just out about him, and i knew he'd discussed unenumerated rights. he was against a bill of rights, as he didn't want people to think only those rights explicitly stated were to ever be considered, and that the federal and state governments could then abridge other rights):
here's this: Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions. and keep in mind, the same 14th amendment was used in several other cases, yet not once can i remember anyone coming out against those rulings.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#15
10-12-2012, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
it's going to be difficult to put that genie back in the bottle. that's why i said what i said about that 'hollow ring'.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
Hybrid Mode
