Community >> View Post
·
Post By
The Avenger

Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021
In Reply To
bd2999 
Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: With respect, I disagree...
Posted: Mon May 09, 2022 at 05:49:02 pm EDT (Viewed 144 times)
Reply Subj: With respect, I disagree...
Posted: Mon May 09, 2022 at 10:12:47 am EDT (Viewed 156 times)



    Quote:
    Sure, but considering there are four or five Amendments that do cover the right to privacy it is something that was considered.



    Quote:
    They enumerated specific ones, but the not quartering soldiers is a privacy thing, the first amednment covers it and so on and so forth. The ones that make some statement on it would be 1, 3, 4 and 9. Then 14. They do not specifically cover the abortion issue but they highlight things like the importance of private ownership of various things including home, beliefs, person and possessions and then life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.



First, it seems clear you're using "privacy" to mean "freedom from interference by the state." This is the definition Roe v. Wade proponents typically apply. I'll run with it.

Now, the argument you - and other Roe v. Wade proponents - wish to put forward seems to be this: "The Constitution establishes several particular ways in which the state may not interfere with its citizens, so therefore the Constitution may be construed as establishing a general protection of its citizens against interference by the state."

This is an example of inductive reasoning - arguing from the specific to the general - and as such must be tested against reality. Does the Constitution establish a general protection of its citizens against interference by the state?

Well, let's see. Does it protect its citizens from the state's interference with (1) their decision as to how fast to drive their car? - (2) their decision as to whether to fight for the state? - (3) their decision as to whether to contribute financially to the state? - (4) their decision as to whether to drive while drinking alcohol? - (5) their decision as to whether to pay for sex? - (6) their decision as to whether to gamble wherever and whenever they choose? - (7) their decision as to whether to purchase narcotics?

The answer is no in every case. Why is the answer no? Because the Constitution doesn't list these as protected rights to non-interference.

Yet somehow a woman's right to be protected from the state's interference with her decision as to whether to terminate her pregnancy is Constitutionally protected, even though the Constitution doesn't say so.

Understand: I'm not debating whether the Constitution should protect women from this state interference. I'm debating whether it does. I say it doesn't, because it doesn't say so, and in at least seven other instances, not saying so is sufficient to preclude such protection.



    Quote:
    Many of which have been upheld from the SCOTUS in cases ranging from 1923 to present day. So, not particularly novel to the 1973 decision.



Every time SCOTUS did this, they erred.



Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software