Can someone explain the vote in California?

[foxpaws]

No, we are all looking for the same thing in the constitution - definition of life. And we will continue to look for it in vain - it isn't in there. Sorry guys, I haven't brought up Roe vs Wade. I am just looking for that point in the constitution where it says life begins - it ain't there.

This isn't a discussion of 'rights' - yet - this is a discussion of technicality. When does life begin? The constitution doesn't have a decree along those lines, unless something has been added in the last lost week in Vegas.

Yes, the constitution does give a mandate to protect life. What it doesn't do is define life.

No broad right to choice, no spin, no shift of 'burden of proof'. I just need to know when life begins - then we can discuss the freedoms that begin at the point of 'life'.

Your religion defines when life begins - science defines when life begins - my body tells me when life begins - and all three are probably different. But right now, the constitution doesn't.

Foss, there isn't anything other than my faith, my doctor and my body that tells me when life begins. So, when does fetus turn into validated life? Who tells you, what tells you when that point is?

And does it belong in the constitution?

So it is obligated to err on the side of life on this issue, not to err on the side of some made up, broad "right to choice"

And why is the constitution obligated to err on the side of life - and not on the side of freedom of religion? Or privacy? Or liberty? Or happiness? All issues here.

 

[shagdrum]

So, sorry shag - I went through the thread... there wasn't really any mention of 'why have any constitutional argument about marriage'? The founding fathers didn't - it isn't in the constitution, they left it out. There isn't any constitutional right for anyone to get married- other than falling within the freedom of religion, and the 14th...

Actually, it would be considered a "liberty", which is covered under the constitution; specifically, the 5th amendment which reads, "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". And that has since been "incorporated" through the 14th amendment.

Part of liberty would be marrying, and raising a family.

Besides...what is the relevance? Where are you going with this? I don't see the relevance of the point you just brought up here.

Why worry about all the definitions of what marriage constitutes?

That has already been covered in this thread. See the various effects of redefining marriage in other countries.

And there certainly shouldn't be any amendments to restrict marriage to some sort of religious belief or historical precedent.

There isn't.
The amendment are to clarify and codify the definition of marriage as it is generally understood by society and to protect it from being redefined by the activist gay community, which is trying to do so.

On the other hand, one minority group should not be allowed to force society to change to meet their standards. That goes well beyond tolerance and discretion to imposition of an agenda. That is the purpose of Prop 8 and similar initiatives/amendments/whatever.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

that mischaracterizes the issue.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the constitution supports a broad right to choose (which is the justification for abortion), not the other way around. You cannot just claim something is a right and then expect it to be such unless and until proven otherwise. You have to show that the right is covered in the constitution, or get it added as an amendment. You are blatantly shifting the burden of proof. It is a dishonest and underhanded tactic.

Specifically with regards to the "right to choose"...
The constitution gives government a mandate to protect life (life, liberty and all that stuff). There is no broad right to choice in the constitution. Only by spinning the constitution and distorting it can you come up with that in the constitution. The Roe v. Wade ruling was blatant judicial activism and is in no way based in the text of the constitution.

There doesn't need to be a specific line in the constitution saying that life begins at conception (to argue that is to move the goalposts). The government has a constitutional mandate to protect life. So it is obligated to err on the side of life on this issue, not to err on the side of some made up, broad "right to choice".

Yes, and there in lies the problem.
Government and the courts don't seem to be able to come up with exactly when life begins.
Many people have offered their belifs as to when it begins but, as of now, there is no consensis.
I could go out on a limb here and tell you what I belive, but the consensis would be, I am only speculating.
I am of the belife that life begins when the soul enteres the body, and I further belive that happens minutes before birth, just as with death, the soul leaves the body, then the body is dead.
This opens up a can of worms as to what is going on inside the pregnant woman.
It moves so it must be life.
Perhaps not
I have stiudied what most refer to as "new age" doctrin, and not only has it made for interestiong reading but it opened up my mind to possibilities far beyond what the adverage person could offer explanation for.
This has really gotten off topic but, I can see another thread dealing with the subject of new age.
I have volums of information on it, and subject connected with it.
Bob.

 

[foxpaws]

This will get confusing - shouldn't one of these be broken out - civil unions or defining life?

 

[shagdrum]

No, we are all looking for the same thing in the constitution - definition of life. And we will continue to look for it in vain - it isn't in there. Sorry guys, I haven't brought up Roe vs Wade. I am just looking for that point in the constitution where it says life begins - it ain't there.

This isn't a discussion of 'rights' - yet - this is a discussion of technicality. When does life begin? The constitution doesn't have a decree along those lines, unless something has been added in the last lost week in Vegas.

Yes, the constitution does give a mandate to protect life. What it doesn't do is define life.

No broad right to choice, no spin, no shift of 'burden of proof'. I just need to know when life begins - then we can discuss the freedoms that begin at the point of 'life'.

Your religion defines when life begins - science defines when life begins - my body tells me when life begins - and all three are probably different. But right now, the constitution doesn't.

Foss, there isn't anything other than my faith, my doctor and my body that tells me when life begins. So, when does fetus turn into validated life? Who tells you, what tells you when that point is?

And does it belong in the constitution?

You are right that it doesn't define life, but only gives a mandate to protect it. That means the any interpretation of the constitution in regards to modern issues like abortion is obligated to err on the side of life. It is...unclear at best weather or not life begins at conceptions, though a strong argument can be made that it does. Since it is unclear, the court is obligated to rule in favor of protecting life.

If you want a definition of where life begins to be a part of the constitution, that is where an amendment comes it. In many way, it is very similar to the gay marriage thing. Both potential amendments are aimed at clarifying and codifying a concrete definition.

Basically, all that should matter as far as any court is concern in an abortion debate is weather it can be logically proven that an abortion is not ending a life. If that cannot be proven, if it is at best "unclear" the the court is obligated to err on the side of life. Since it cannot be proven that abortion is not ending a life, there is only one option for any court to take, short of judicial activism.

 

[foxpaws]

So, why are you so excited to restrict my 'rights' shag? Shouldn't you be erring on the side of freedoms and not restrictions?

Until those amendments are invoked shouldn't you back off? Isn't that what the constitution is really about - expand freedoms, not deny them?

 

[foxpaws]

Basically, all that should matter as far as any court is concern in an abortion debate is weather it can be logically proven that an abortion is not ending a life. If that cannot be proven, if it is at best "unclear" the the court is obligated to err on the side of life. Since it cannot be proven that abortion is not ending a life, there is only one option for any court to take, short of judicial activism.

So, once again we are lined up with source, opposing views of science or religion - which is 'right' here shag?

Most science validates 'life' as survival outside the womb. Obviously that isn't what you go by - right?

What criteria do you set for life?

 

[shagdrum]

So, why are you so excited to restrict my 'rights' shag? Shouldn't you be erring on the side of freedoms and not restrictions?

Until those amendments are invoked shouldn't you back off? Isn't that what the constitution is really about - expand freedoms, not deny them?

The constitution is not ment to expand anything. It is ment to restrict the government and protect certian, specific freedoms.

In the case of abortion, you have two competing "freedoms"; a right to choice and a right to life. The question is, which right should take priority over the other in the case of abortion.

There is no broad right to choice in the constitution but there is a specific right to life that the government is obligated to protect. If you want to expand your rights to include a broad right to choice, or more specifically, a right to an abortion, there is a specific procedure for doing so. It is called an amendment.

The court is not constitutionally empowered to make up rights or add rights; it is only empowered to protect rights and freedoms in the constitution from government action.

 

[shagdrum]

So, once again we are lined up with source, opposing views of science or religion - which is 'right' here shag?

Most science validates 'life' as survival outside the womb. Obviously that isn't what you go by - right?

What criteria do you set for life?

Ahh no.

Any objective scientific definition of life would show life to begin at conception. I am not basing anything on religion here. My main concern with the abortion issue is procedural. I am against judicial activism and think it should be made an amendment in some fashion; either enshrining a right to an abortion in the constitution or forbidding it in some fashion.

 

[foxpaws]

The constitution is not ment to expand anything. It is ment to restrict the government and protect certian, specific freedoms.

In the case of abortion, you have two competing "freedoms"; a right to choice and a right to life. There is no broad right to choice in the constitution but there is a specific right to life that the government is obligated to protect. If you want to expand your rights to include a broad right to choice, or more specifically, a right to an abortion, there is a specific procedure for doing so. It is called an amendment.

The court is not constitutionally empowered to make up rights or add rights.

Of course there is no right to choice - but there are specific rights to religion, privacy, liberty.

Bob's religion states life begins at the creation of 'soul'. And my science (and I might say most science) states that life begins as validated outside of the womb. Your science says at conception. Some religions state that all 'chance' at life is sacred - so birth control is destroying the chance at life -

Which one do we go with?

Right now - there is no definition - and until then shag, you state we should go with the blanket err on the side of life. So do I - my point of life is different than yours though.

So, first we need to define life - and who should be allowed to do that?

The government? And how restrictive should it be? And are you allowing religion any say in the matter at all?

Yes, an amendment would solve the problem - but until then, when this question comes up - you still need to define when life begins - how do we do that? The courts will need to - isn't that correct? They aren't defining a freedom of choice - they are defining a point where 'life' begins.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes, an amendment would solve the problem - but until then, when this question comes up - you still need to define when life begins - how do we do that? The courts will need to - isn't that correct? They aren't defining a freedom of choice - they are defining a point where 'life' begins.

The courts have no business determining and defining life. That is what the laws are for. That is the whole point. Roe v. Wade as aimed at stopping states from defining life, through any process (regular bill or amendment to the state constitution. It took that off the table by 9 people simply imposing their own view.

It is not the place of the courts to determine what life is. It is not soley the place of the government to define it. It is the place of society as a whole to do that, hence the amendment process.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Of course there is no right to choice - but there are specific rights to religion, privacy, liberty.

Bob's religion states life begins at the creation of 'soul'. And my science (and I might say most science) states that life begins as validated outside of the womb. Your science says at conception. Some religions state that all 'chance' at life is sacred - so birth control is destroying the chance at life -

Which one do we go with?

Right now - there is no definition - and until then shag, you state we should go with the blanket err on the side of life. So do I - my point of life is different than yours though.

So, first we need to define life - and who should be allowed to do that?

The government? And how restrictive should it be? And are you allowing religion any say in the matter at all?

Yes, an amendment would solve the problem - but until then, when this question comes up - you still need to define when life begins - how do we do that? The courts will need to - isn't that correct? They aren't defining a freedom of choice - they are defining a point where 'life' begins.

This thread really wandered off track, and there is much we could discuss regarding when life does, or does not begin.
I am going to start a new thread dealing with this subject, and it isn't so much about religion, but rather a source open to inquiry.
I will name this new thread, "When is it"?, so you can post too it.
This new thread will be in the "General discussion " section, not the political section.
Bob.

 

[foxpaws]

The courts have no business determining and defining life. That is what the laws are for. That is the whole point. Roe v. Wade as aimed at stopping states from defining life, through any process (regular bill or amendment to the state constitution. It took that off the table by 9 people simply imposing their own view.

It is not the place of the courts to determine what life is. It is not soley the place of the government to define it. It is the place of society as a whole to do that, hence the amendment process.

But, until that point - that the people decide (US constitution has an amendment) - doesn't the court have to decide? It has to determine when the fetus becomes a person and therefore has rights.

Shouldn't you be working on getting an amendment passed rather than trying to sway the court? The court can't step back on this - it is constitutional. When do rights begin? Since it isn't spelled out in the constitution, there needs to be SCOTUS opinion on it. They will interpret the constitution. That is their job. And unless society declares by amendment when life begins, we are stuck with the court. Because currently the other rights (primarily a woman's right to privacy) in the US constitution overrule the states' definition of 'life'.

 

[fossten]

So, why are you so excited to restrict my 'rights' shag? Shouldn't you be erring on the side of freedoms and not restrictions?

Until those amendments are invoked shouldn't you back off? Isn't that what the constitution is really about - expand freedoms, not deny them?

5 lawyers are not qualified to determine whether or not life begins at conception. That is a medical and biological issue. If life begins at conception, then the court has ruled that you have a right to murder your unborn for the sake of convenience. This right abrogates the right of the baby to survival.

That is sick. What about the baby's right to life?

There are many areas where we don't get to choose what we do with our bodies already, such as illegal drugs and prostitution. So that argument is weak as well. Besides, the baby's body is not part of the mother's body, it only resides there. This has been medically proven now. Does the baby get to choose what is done with its body?

 

[shagdrum]

But, until that point - that the people decide (US constitution has an amendment) - doesn't the court have to decide? It has to determine when the fetus becomes a person and therefore has rights.

Shouldn't you be working on getting an amendment passed rather than trying to sway the court? The court can't step back on this - it is constitutional. When do rights begin? Since it isn't spelled out in the constitution, there needs to be SCOTUS opinion on it. They will interpret the constitution. That is their job. And unless society declares by amendment when life begins, we are stuck with the court. Because currently the other rights (primarily a woman's right to privacy) in the US constitution overrule the states' definition of 'life'.

If you read the ruling of Roe v. Wade is is not based on a broad right to privacy (which is also not in the constitution), but on a broad right to choice (no textual basis in the constitution). The court can only recognize and protect rights in the constitution, so protecting a "right to choice" is blatant judicial activism.

The court doesn't "have to decide" anything here. That choice is already made for them in the constitution. They are to enforce the constitutional obligation to protect life. Any other option is not constitutionally available to them, so to utilize any other option (as in the case of Roe v. Wade) is blatant activism.

 

[foxpaws]

You need to determine when life begins, so that you can decide where the line is drawn for 'rights'. If life doesn't begin until viable outside the womb (21 weeks or so) than, until that point, the fetus has no rights, and the mother does. If life begins at birth - then the mother has rights up until that point. If life begins at conception, then rights for the fetus begin at that point.

Without a finite definition of when life begins - there can only be interpretation by the court. That is the way it is. Wrong or right, that is how this is set up... sorry...

The states cannot determine when life begins - because if the state determines that life begins at conception - then the rights that the state has determined are 'trumping' the mother's federal rights - which won't happen.

And yes, the court will decide when life happens until a US constitutional amendment is passed, because there isn't a definition in the constitution of when life begins. When that happens, then the court can remove itself, until then, the court does decide. Shag, that choice is already made for them as well in the constitution. They need to protect the rights of the mother - who obviously fits the requirements of 'life'. By doing that, they need to determine when the fetus' rights start. So, they need to determine that point, and until it is defined for them in the constitution, they are going to use their judgment. That is what they do - they are judges. They will 'judge' when life begins if it isn't defined. They need to, so they can protect everyone's (including the mother's) rights in this case.

If SCOTUS doesn't 'decide' and let the states rights stand, then, by omission they have agreed with the states determination of when life begins - which is wrong. It isn't a state issue, it is a federal issue, because the rights defined in the constitution are fundamental.

Oh, I have read Roe vs Wade - it is a privacy issue that rests on the due process clause - nothing about freedom of choice, or the ninth amendment...

And Foss, a 'baby' has rights. However, there still needs to be a determination of when 'baby' happens. Work on getting an amendment through - that is what this is about - process. It is no different than other amendments allowing minorities, women, etc, to have rights. You might have looked at a black man, and thought that since he was no different basically than the white man standing next to him that his rights were the same. They weren't until it was stated in the Equal Rights Amendment. You can see a 3 week old fetus moving, head formed, fingers apparent, but, it will not have rights until it is stated in the constitution that at that point (or whatever point the amendment states) it is 'life'.

 

[TheDude]

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

I know, I know, only one certain definition of marriage and/or who specifically it covers is to be considered, why, because "you" said so.

 

[fossten]

You need to determine when life begins, so that you can decide where the line is drawn for 'rights'. If life doesn't begin until viable outside the womb (21 weeks or so) than, until that point, the fetus has no rights, and the mother does. If life begins at birth - then the mother has rights up until that point. If life begins at conception, then rights for the fetus begin at that point.

Without a finite definition of when life begins - there can only be interpretation by the court. That is the way it is. Wrong or right, that is how this is set up... sorry...

The states cannot determine when life begins - because if the state determines that life begins at conception - then the rights that the state has determined are 'trumping' the mother's federal rights - which won't happen.

And yes, the court will decide when life happens until a US constitutional amendment is passed, because there isn't a definition in the constitution of when life begins. When that happens, then the court can remove itself, until then, the court does decide. Shag, that choice is already made for them as well in the constitution. They need to protect the rights of the mother - who obviously fits the requirements of 'life'. By doing that, they need to determine when the fetus' rights start. So, they need to determine that point, and until it is defined for them in the constitution, they are going to use their judgment. That is what they do - they are judges. They will 'judge' when life begins if it isn't defined. They need to, so they can protect everyone's (including the mother's) rights in this case.

If SCOTUS doesn't 'decide' and let the states rights stand, then, by omission they have agreed with the states determination of when life begins - which is wrong. It isn't a state issue, it is a federal issue, because the rights defined in the constitution are fundamental.

Oh, I have read Roe vs Wade - it is a privacy issue that rests on the due process clause - nothing about freedom of choice, or the ninth amendment...

And Foss, a 'baby' has rights. However, there still needs to be a determination of when 'baby' happens. Work on getting an amendment through - that is what this is about - process. It is no different than other amendments allowing minorities, women, etc, to have rights. You might have looked at a black man, and thought that since he was no different basically than the white man standing next to him that his rights were the same. They weren't until it was stated in the Equal Rights Amendment. You can see a 3 week old fetus moving, head formed, fingers apparent, but, it will not have rights until it is stated in the constitution that at that point (or whatever point the amendment states) it is 'life'.

You're really incorrect in your "this is what this is about" claim. What this is about is whether or not it should be considered murder to abort a baby. Plain and simple. (This is really a bad case of denial, because it takes a real effort to pretend that a baby in a womb is actually dead, and suddenly as it is born it is infused with life somehow. That's absurd, and any intelligent person knows it.) If it's illegal, then abortion "doctors" can be prosecuted, and the "business" of abortion will dry up and become like the drug "business." People in the mainstream will have to make different choices and consider the consequences before engaging in unprotected or premarital sex. Right now it's used as a form of birth control, and that is a FACT.

By the way, the Equal Rights Amendment wasn't about blacks and whites, it was about women and men. And it didn't pass.

 

[shagdrum]

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

This looks very familiar. In fact, you tried the exact same arguement in post #203 of this thread. I discredited this argument in post #206 When I wrote the following:

This serves as another red herring to cloud the issue here.

Webster doesn't get to determine what the definition of marriage is, it reflects the various definitions people use for marriage. In fact, Webster has to account for all possible uses of a term in their definitions. Just because they have a definition of marriage that allows for gay marriage doesn't mean that is the definition we are discussing. What we are discussing is the legal and societal (cultural) definition of marriage...That would be definition number one:

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law ​

I know, I know, only one certain definition of marriage and/or who specifically it covers is to be considered, why, because "you" said so.

No, because that is historically what society says it is and what society today overwhelmingly supports in polls and at the voting booth. The pro-gay marriage side of this debate and you are both cherry picking how you want to define marriage (excessively broadly) and then trying to shift the burden of proof to the rest of society to not accept that definition. That is exceedingly presumptuous in addition to being dishonest and underhanded. In light of that fact, it is clear that there is no reasoning with you.

Every pro-gay marriage argument made in this thread (and most in the other thread) is aimed at dishonestly and unjustifiably shifting the burden of proof here. I have shown in the previous thread why, due to the precautionary principle, the burden of proof falls logically on the gay marriage advocates. Since (not suprisingly) you want to ignore it, here are some quotes from that thread to summarize the idea:

The precautionary principle would dictate that burden of proof naturally falls on those pushing to allow gay marriage...

...If there is a viable possibility of a negative consequence it has to be assumed as likely unless and until proven otherwise. In order to avoid imposing those potential costs (negatives) on society, the burden of proof logically falls on those advocating change (in this case, gay marriage). You don't conduct "social experiments"...

...[the high burden of proof for any change at the national level] is necessary to avoid irreversible damage caused by reckless change. That is the way the constitution was set up. Show me where you have had a net benefit in this country due to change that circumvented the constitutionally mandated precautionary principle.

The high costs of health care, high gas prices, high poverty and illegitimacy rates in the black community and a large number of other national problems can be attributed to programs that circumvented the precautionary principle and caused reckless change.

Any and every change at a governmental level has the potential for both positive and negative consequences; both foreseeable and unforeseeable. You logically should only enact change when there is a net benefit (after a cost/benefit analysis). Due to the fact that all consequences cannot be foreseen, you should exercise caution when enacting change to avoid emotional and irrational decisions. That is why it is only logical to place the burden of proof on those proposing change, as the precautionary principle dictates. That is why the Framers set the constitution up the way they did.

Go back to that example of not being innocent until proven guilty. If you don't make the burden of proof on the prosecution, it effectively gets shifted in favor of the prosecution and against the defendant due to human nature.

The same is true when it comes to societal change on the governmental level (local, state or federal). If the burden of proof is not set against change, it would effectively be in favor of change (again, due to human nature) and you would end up with reckless change that would have many negative and irreversible consequences.​

 

[foxpaws]

Foss, whoops – in the heat of… yep – whoops – the 14th amendment – not the sadly defeated 28th I believe I am still muzzy from Vegas...

But, onward... Until a set point of when life begins is agreed on (the best way is a constitutional amendment) abortion will be legal, and not murder (and depending when that ‘point of life’ is decreed – abortion may continue to be legal). It will be a justifiable form of birth control until that definition happens. Yes, that is a fact.

Make it happen. As soon as the amendment goes through congress and is ratified by the states – you can have your way. No one is stopping you from trying.

I don’t need to question your concept of when life begins, you don’t need to question my concept of when life begins – there just needs to be a consensus. We the People… not We the Few…

The government currently is able to take away life, it is allowed to be the ‘executioner’. Certainly it can’t be that hard for the people to decide that the constitution can also be a tool to declare the beginning of life.

Until that happens we are stuck with the courts - not a very good solution to a very difficult problem.

 

[shagdrum]

Without a finite definition of when life begins - there can only be interpretation by the court. That is the way it is. Wrong or right, that is how this is set up... sorry...

No, that is not how it is set up. The court is not constitutionally empowered to make decisions like that. They do not have free reign to make up rights, or redefine certian rights as they see fit.

If a declaration of when life begins is to become codified in law, it is the place of the legislature. And a issue of that nature really demands an amendment.

The states cannot determine when life begins - because if the state determines that life begins at conception - then the rights that the state has determined are 'trumping' the mother's federal rights - which won't happen.

There is no "federal right" of the mother's that is being trumped. The constitution is expressly silent on abortion or when life begins. There is also no provision asserting a "right to privacy" or "choice". The courts made up that right and then determined that it trumped the right to life (which is in the constitution). That is not "interpretation" of the constitution, it is distorting it to support an agenda. That is blatant judicial activism.

And yes, the court will decide when life happens until a US constitutional amendment is passed, because there isn't a definition in the constitution of when life begins. When that happens, then the court can remove itself, until then, the court does decide.

Again, they do not have the authority to do so.

They need to protect the rights of the mother - who obviously fits the requirements of 'life'.

The mother's right to life is not in question here, it is the "right to privacy". Since there is no broad "right to privacy" in the constitution, they only right that the court should be concerned with is the right to life. the only right to life at issue here is that of the unborn baby. If there is a chance that the baby's right to life is being denied then the government has an obligation to protect that and the SCOTUS is obligated to uphold those laws.

If SCOTUS doesn't 'decide' and let the states rights stand, then, by omission they have agreed with the states determination of when life begins - which is wrong. It isn't a state issue, it is a federal issue, because the rights defined in the constitution are fundamental.

There is no constitutional right of the mother's at the federal level that is being infringed upon through any state action to protect the right to life of the unborn baby. It is not the place of the court. If anything is going to be done at the federal level concerning abortion, it begins in the legislature, per the constitution.

Oh, I have read Roe vs Wade - it is a privacy issue that rests on the due process clause - nothing about freedom of choice, or the ninth amendment...

Yes, but it is rather clear that you don't understand it, or the concepts and legal theories behind it. The Roe v. Wade ruling spins and distorts the due process clause through the legal fiction that is "substantive due process", as well as "incorporation" to make up the broad "right to privacy" in the constitution.

 

[foxpaws]

No, that is not how it is set up. The court is not constitutionally empowered to make decisions like that. They do not have free reign to make up rights, or redefine certian rights as they see fit.

If a declaration of when life begins is to become codified in law, it is the place of the legislature. And a issue of that nature really demands an amendment.

Until a point is determined when life begins – the court can make that decision. They aren’t making up a single ‘right’ here. They are determining who are allowed rights. Just like in Minor vs Happersett (1875). In Minor, a unanimous Court rejected the argument that either the privileges and immunities clause or the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment extended the vote to women. Without a clear path to give women the right to vote, the court had to make a judgment – and found that women did not have a right to the vote. There was question concerning the 14th amendment here – but, since it wasn’t ‘spelled out’ in the 14th, the court had to refuse women the right to vote (ah, those were the days – huh Foss?)

Therefore they didn’t arbitrarily decide that rights should be conferred without an amendment – just as in the case of abortion – rights cannot be arbitrarily conferred on something that isn’t declared ‘life’.

There is no "federal right" of the mother's that is being trumped... The constitution is expressly silent on abortion or when life begins. There is also no provision asserting a "right to privacy" or "choice".

Yes, there is - the right to privacy covers patient/physician relationships. That is where the mother’s right to privacy is being trampled. Since fetuses currently have no ‘rights’ (because they haven’t been defined as having ‘life’ within the constitution) the federal court is left with defending the rights of the mother, until the point where ‘life’ begins for the fetus.

The constitution is expressly silent on abortion or when life begins. There is also no provision asserting a "right to privacy" or "choice". The courts made up that right and then determined that it trumped the right to life (which is in the constitution). That is not "interpretation" of the constitution, it is distorting it to support an agenda. That is blatant judicial activism.

No, Shag, that is what judges do – they interpret the constitution. Similar to the Dredd Scott case – the court had to find in favor of the slave’s owner and have his rights overrule the slave’s rights, because there wasn’t any definition if slaves had rights guaranteed to them in the constitution. It took an amendment to do that. Just as the court now has to find in favor of the mother, because there aren’t any explicit rights given to an entity that hasn’t been defined as having ‘life’. There needs to be an amendment to do that.

Since the fetus hasn’t been declared as having life – then it has no rights. Right or wrong that is just the way it is. The mother has rights, declared in the constitution. Without the fetus being given ‘life’ status, the court has to find in favor of the mother, who obviously has rights. Just as the slave owner won, so will the mother. Just as the slave obviously should have had the same rights but didn’t until an amendment, it will follow the same with the unborn fetus. It may obviously have the same inalienable rights as the mother, but until that amendment is passed where it is declared ‘equal in life’, it won’t have the same rights, no matter how obvious it is.

… the only right that the court should be concerned with is the right to life. the only right to life at issue here is that of the unborn baby. If there is a chance that the baby's right to life is being denied then the government has an obligation to protect that and the SCOTUS is obligated to uphold those laws.

And the court is concerned with the right to life – but since ‘life’ hasn’t been defined, there is nothing being denied the fetus. Not one right. When law states that the fetus is alive at some point (conception, viability, birth – whatever) then, the court will need to defend the rights of the baby. Until that point, only the mother falls under the protection of the constitution.

There is no constitutional right of the mother's at the federal level that is being infringed upon through any state action to protect the right to life of the unborn baby. It is not the place of the court. If anything is going to be done at the federal level concerning abortion, it begins in the legislature, per the constitution.

Yes, it does start with legislature – until that point the fetus has no rights – not the other way around. When life is determined to happen, then rights are invoked, not before. Just as when slavery was abolished, and blacks became citizens, then rights were invoked. As soon as a life beginning point is determined, and fetuses become citizens, then it has rights, not before.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

This issue regarding when life begins is not a matter for any court, in any land.
It also is not a matter that needs to be addressed by the constitution.
It is strickly a moral issue that should be decided by each and every woman who either is pregnant, or will be one day.
I have given my opinion as to when life begins, and I live with that knowledge.
Decisions by anyone other than a pregnant woman should be null and void.
It is a personal decision, and should be left that way.
As for abortion, that also is a personal choice . A woman MUST be able to make her own decision without any interference from any one, especially the government.
Bob.

 

[shagdrum]

Therefore they didn’t arbitrarily decide that rights should be conferred without an amendment – just as in the case of abortion – rights cannot be arbitrarily conferred on something that isn’t declared ‘life’.

But the court can arbirtrarily make up rights? There is no "right to privacy in the constitution". Show me where in the text it exists. If you did read the Roe v. Wade ruling, you would see it is based on equivocation with regards to the term "due process". It is flawed and fallacious reasoning, and any ruling based on it is logically invalid.

Yes, there is - the right to privacy covers patient/physician relationships. That is where the mother’s right to privacy is being trampled.

Again, show me where in the constitution there is a "right to privacy".

No, Shag, that is what judges do – they interpret the constitution.

Correct, they interpret the constitution. They are not supposed to distort it to their own ends, but that is exactly what the whole fiction of substantive due process allows. Scalia said it best when he wrote, "The entire practice of using the Due Process Clause to add judicially favored rights to the limitations upon democracy set forth in the Bill of Rights (usually under the rubric of so-called 'substantive due process') is in my view judicial usurpation".

The whole idea of substantive due process undermines the rule of law because "the lack of any textual basis for creating new rights gives unelected judges too much discretion to advance their sense of right and wrong".

the Roe v. Wade decision is a prime example of that. There is no right to privacy in the constitution. There is a right to life and the state is fully within it's power to protect that right. In fact, they have an obligation to do so.

In fact, the whole argument of weather or not a fetus is a life is specious at best. It is an underhanded attempt to redefine life to exclude a fetus from the definition of life and deny it any constitutional protection so that the fiction of a woman's "right to an abortion" is protected.

After a point, it is a pretty morally and philosophically unjustifiable argument by any objective standard. Any reasonable person would agree that in a conflict between freedoms, life trumps any other freedom. All other freedoms are worthless without that freedom. So to argue that some "right to privacy" trumps a "right to life" is absurd. That is why the abortion movement works to redefine life to exclude an unborn baby; then there is no conflict between rights.

There is no constitutional justification for any right to an abortion. To make a constitutional justification requires an amendment. No other course is create that right is justified, constitutionally.

Any ruling from the SCOTUS is only appropriate if it err's on the side of protecting rights in the constitution; not rights that the judges wish were in the constitution.

Yes, it does start with legislature – until that point the fetus has no rights – not the other way around.

Can you give some logical reason for that assertion? I have given reasons why the fetus should be considered to have rights unless and until proven otherwise. Specifically, the constitutional mandate of the government to protect life inherent in the 5th and 14th amendments. Morally and philosophically, there is no justification for not erring on the side of protecting a potential life.

Are you really going to argue that society should err on the side of protecting a made up "right to choose" even if that means murder of an innocent?!

 

[Titan]

The courts need to stay put of it, the government needs to stay out of it, people need to stop tying to control others and make them into mirrors of themselves.

You as an individual are the one who has to live with your choices. Unless your actions infringe upon the rights if others the government should stay out of it.

And just because others don't agree with your choices doesn't mean they hate you.