All your womb are belong to us

I already stated why it's a bad law around page 2-3 of this thread. Not my fault you didn't read it.

I did read it. It's simplistic nonsense and factually incorrect.

Of course it's simple. It's called a summary.

Factually incorrect, however, you have to prove.

In either event, it rather blows your claim that I never gave reasons. You just disagree with them.

Read it back to yourself and you tell me if you really gave reasons.

You essentially are only saying "It's bad law, because it's bad law."
Exactly what you accuse the Court of doing, BTW.

You don't say WHY the Constitutional interpretation is wrong, you say NOTHING.
You don't even say what the Constitutional issue was.

You're right. I mispoke. It's not factually incorrect. It's completely devoid of facts.

Fine.

The issue is the right to privacy.

The right to privacy is not mentioned in the constitution.

When challenged on this point, they invented the penumbra arguement.

I object, as I said, to the penumbra arguement. I think it's bad law.

The right to privacy IS mentioned in the Constitution as we understand the word "privacy" now.

At the time the Constitution was written the word "privacy" meant "going potty", and so obviously does not appear.

What does appear in the Coinstitution regarding privacy is the Fourth Amendment

Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

secure in their persons.

That covers privacy.

If that's true, why are there laws against ingesting or possession of some drugs?

Against search and seizures.

There are laws against possesion and ingesting sure --but it's unconstitutional to search (or in the case of ingesting, induce vomitting or excreting) without reasonable cause.

Fair enough. So, we can have laws against abortion, we just can't search or seize without probable cause. That's reasonable to me.

My point is most of the original amendments to the Constitution cover "privacy" in one respect or another (the "penumbra" argument)

I realize you disagree with the arguement, but your reason for disagreeing is bizarre.

The fact that the word "privacy" doesn't exist in the Constitution is not sufficient, as I've already mentioned that the very word had a decidedly different meaning when the Constitution was written.

This is one of the main problems I have with Originalists. Jefferson himself said the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted with every new generation.

If you want a law prohibiting abortion then I would suggest you work on getting a Federal level legal definition of what constitutes a "human being".

Good luck with that.

Saying it would suck is an understatement. But killing the baby because of how it was conceived doesn't sit right with me. A life, is a life, is a life. And as others have pointed out, there are so many desperate would be parents, waiting for kids to adopt, handing a baby born under such circumstances to new, loving parents would be the best scenario, and in the long term, far better than killing it.

So then in your mind Ingrid, it's ok for the daughter to keep getting raped and impregnated because there's just so many people wanting to adopt.

That's wonderful. Not only is she raped, but she has to go through the trauma of birth as well.

Lucky girl.

It's not a baby. ::::rolls eyes::::

Not bizarre to me. I don't believe you can derive a broad-spectrum "right to privacy" from the 4th amendment . To do so is, to cram in a phrase that doesn't quite fit in context, to put words in the mouth of the constitution.

I wouldn't be against creating a new ammendment to the same effect, as I've mentioned. I just don't feel that Roe V Wade, as stands, is good law.



I'm a Jacksonian, not a Jeffersonian. Big surprise there, right? Although I know you weren't really talking about Meade's divisions.

No. I'm not sure where you're getting that at all.



Personally, (and this is my very personal opinion on the matter) If i was in her shoes, years later, i would think it was worth going through the the hardship of having the baby at the time, over destroying a life.

Having said that, I'm not sure how comfortable I feel about having the government make that decision for me.

I don't think an abortion is ever "good". I think there are situations, like that, where it is unquestionably the lesser of two bad situations, however.

Well, let's count the number of dead babies it took to get us this far! Oh, and thanks for pointing out that rape babies don't deserve to live-the little bastards.



You mean like all those anti-gay marriage laws so many voters voted for in 2004 only to have them shot down in the courts? Where were your deep sighs then, vivi?



"In my opinion, it is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children," said Sen. Julie Bartling, a Democrat and the bill's main sponsor.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185786,00.html

OMG! The main sponsor is a Democrat ...and a woman! Someone tell her to keep her hands off her body!



Before the Congress passed a bill outlawing late term abortion, they had rounds of hearings with doctors who said that late-term abortion is never necessary to the health of the mother and that there are in fact procedures that are safer for mother and child at that point.

That said, I do believe in the morning after pill. (but I also believe in a company's right to sell or not sell whatever they want)



So then you're pro-war? And there is a big difference between killing someone who is shooting at you and has plans to kill you, your friends, your family, etc as in war, and an infant who has done nothing wrong except being conceived (except in cases of rape/incest) by a woman who didn't have enough repsonsibility to keep her legs shut rather than engage in an act designed to produce an outcome for which she wasn't prepared all the while knowing that abstinence was the only %100 effective means of preventing said outcome.


...and harvested for their stem cells!


But so long as you're in the womb, you're fair game, even if you could live on your own outside of the womb. Even to the point of natural delivery, as long as at least half of you is still in the womb, we can reach in there and crush your skull like a walnut. However, if you've raped, beaten, and murdered a 14 year old girl, then we can only kill you if we are absolutely sure that you are comfortable because to do otherwise would be inhumane.



That's me! Pro-choice and anti-abortion. I believe that (except in the cases of rape/incest) that every woman has the God-given, inalienable right to choose...whether or not she's gonna have sex! I believe in the morning after pill. I believe that the women who choose infanticide over motherhood are human, too-but so are murderers and we aren't trying to make things any safer for them. ...well, ok, the ACLU is...but that is beside the point.


Well, let's see...women are always saying it takes two to tango...or at least they do when there's a monthy check involved. If you're going to have the right to force the father to pay child support for 18 years, then the father (except in the cases of rape/incest) should have a say in the abortion, too, right?



Here we go again with that bullshit "you don't have a uterus" argument. Well, uterus or not, that baby didn't get there by magic. And if we're gonna devolve into discussion about abortion after artificial insemination, hang on cuz it's gonna get really bumpy.

-Kiamat Dusk
...father...

Not soley from the Fourth amendment no. You can derive it collectively from the first 10 amendments.

Having said that, I do think you are quite right that there should be a further clarifying amendment regarding a woman's right to choose, as Roe V Wade is in constant danger of being overturned by radical originalists like Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.

So while I disagree that Roe is "bad law", I think it's far too fragile.

No need. We can create a law forbiding abortion unless the constitution protects the right to an abortion. It doesn't.

At any point in my pregnancy, be it weeks or months into it, I would consider it my baby, my kid. I wouldn't feel any less attached to it based on it's age, I wouldn't worry any less about it because it was only a month into my pregnancy over 6 months.

I understand, someone who was raped wouldn't feel this sort of attachment to their baby.

You people with your activist judges make me sick.

your attachment is a subjective experience. I respect it, I'd even feel it myself.

The point is that factually and objectively it is not a baby. It's a blastula.

See, I think your kind of missing my point.

I agree. The spirit of "Right to Privacy" probably exists in the constitution.

But as the constitution exists now, there is not wording sufficient to support it, in my opinion, even taking into account several generations of language evolution.

Hence why I suggest an ammendment. Until the wording exists, I feel any law made based on it's existance is unconstitutional, by definition.

You know, Scalia and Alito are waaaay too new to know how they will rule, by the way. They would hardly be the first justice to change their voting record when they reach the SCOTUS, but they wouldn't be alone if they didn't, either.