This response makes no sense. If an individual is convinced that a right not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution exists there are limited ways to get it legally guaranteed and having that individual declaring it so isn't one of them. Get Congress to begin an amendment process or declare it so with a SC decision.
Do you mean that ever unenumerated right possessed by man must be enumerated by way of legislation? That will be a never ending process, and government has more important things to do. Why not just recognize the supremacy of the individual and liberty? Mr. Justice Brandeis alluded to that a century ago--"The only title in our democracy superior to that of President is the title of citizen." And again, "The most important office, and the one which all of us can and should fulfill, is that of private citizen." If the Ninth means what it says and says what it means, then there is no need at all to make the futile attempt to encode all unenumerated rights. The government's purpose is to guarantee the rights of man, not deny them.
I agree, but how would you suggest the federal government legally protect such rights that aren't enumerated in the Constitution and aren't declared to be protected by Supreme Court decision? The truth is it can't. The issue of abortion is left to the states to decide. States, after all, have governments too.
That is true, and certainly a possible solution. But the states must craft their legislation so that it does not violate the rights protected by the US Constitution.
Incorrect AGAIN! A politically motivated nonsensical abortion exclusion does not back up what you say! Protection for children in utero at any stage of development is what the UVVA provides!
FoxHastings said: ↑ FoxHastings said: ↑ From the UVVA : (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution– (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;"" DUH, it shows that it did not make fetuses persons since it doesn't affect abortion (which will always go on NO, the UVVA does NOT provide protection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It provides added charges if a fetus is killed......because those who deny women their CHOICE are CRIMINALS...
AND IF the fetus was a legal PERSON the UVVA would not have had to exist at all !!!! It just adds charges for taking away a woman's right to choose ( a criminal offense)
Abortion is undeniably the intentional killing of an innocent human life, it is murder. Murder is not now, and never should be a Constitutionally protected right
when you can put a two-week-old fetus on your tax return as a child dependent, let us know or 10 fertilized eggs in a petri dish on your taxes even a pregnant women has rights, no one can force her to abort
Simply because if we have rights not enumerated in the Constitution, they have to be legislated into law. On the abortion question, we see the states doing just that - everything from zero restrictions to very strong restrictions. The Dobbs decision overturning Roe was not a prohibition on abortion. The problem with Roe that the Dobbs case addressed was that Roe effectively legislated, which is not the purview of the Supreme Court.
That's a poor argument. We have the right to walk down the beach at dawn, but that has not been legislated into law. There is no hint in the document that unenumerated rights must be legislated into law. I do not find any evidence that Roe was legislated into law. If we examine some old Common Law times, the role of the judiciary was to 'discover' rights. That is effectively what Griswold and Roe did. I think the more direct route is by way of the Ninth, and Griswold mentioned that route. Can common sense play a role? @mswan It's too bad that life has so many gray areas, that it couldn't be black and white as you see it. Murder is the killing of a person. The fetus has not reached person status. The living woman has the right to her own body. Neither the church nor the state can lawfully usurp powers. The vast majority of women WANT to carry and deliver babies. Only a minority want to have an abortion, for a myriad number of reasons. Either we honor a woman's right to her body or we don't.
The unborn may have rights? Might you cite any part of the document that suggests that? It seems that if churches or states want to deny women the right to their own bodies, the churches and states would be in violation of the spirit of 14th Amendment and 19th Amendment.
Of course women have rights to the own bodies but they don't have a right to kill other human lives, even if they created them. Griswald was wrongly decided IMO and in the opinion of Justice Hugo Black clearly expressed in his dissent. "I repeat, so as not to be misunderstood, that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision [p521] of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible. uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have. [n16] [p522]" https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut/Dissent_Black
Show me where anyone is FORCED to use their physical body to sustain the life of another.... NO, NO one can force anyone to give them a kidney or heart or any other body part to sustain the life of another. YOU want a fetus to have more rights than any other being ...and they don't....when they can grow on their own UNATTACHED to the woman they are in THEN maybe they could have rights..
I completely agree with Black's first sentence. The rest is basically conjecture, and he probably has a good point. In Griswold the issue was the practice of birth control by married couples. Apparently Connecticut had prohibited or criminalized the practice of birth control, and SCOTUS correctly decided that Connecticut's law DID infringe on constitutional rights, unenumerated but certainly covered by the Ninth. Have you considered that in life, Utopia is not an option? That legislative bodies of men CANNOT deliver utopian conditions? Do you think that humans should be given majority upon birth? The law doesn't. It and the courts recognize that youngsters are in a special category when it comes to rights. Common Sense says the same thing about a fetus. You may consider that cruel and inhumane, and I'm sorry, but life can be very cruel.
No, a fetus does not have majority status, but it does have human rights. It's a human because the result of a human egg cannot be anything other than a human. It is a living human because it grows from that fertilized egg and a non-living thing cannot grow. It is exactly what a human being looks like at that stage of development.
Perhaps you can find for me some legal documents, international or domestic, that specifies that a fetus has the same rights as an individual?
I don't think I can find such a document that bit it's irrelevant to me. I'm speaking of abortion as a moral issue not a legal issue. I want to encourage people to accept it as being immoral and base their decision on the fact that it's immoral.
Because abortion was not considered legal nor a right at the time, this would have no basis for supporting that. Consider the government preventing someone from planting crops on the land or taking medicine which is what leftist democrats and republicans love doing. A more basic explanation is that just because chairs weren't listed as a right doesn't mean the government has the power to destroy them all.
I'm a Christian, a man who actually HAS morals. A man who values human life from conception to the instant of death. A man who doesn't kill another to make my own life easier.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Why should people adopt YOUR "morals" ??? Who are you??? Again, why should people adopt YOUR "morals"....they all have their own....which are as good as yours... And have all the "morals" you like but why do you think you can force yours on other people???
I'd never tell a woman what to do with her uterus either, but what they do to another human being is another matter.
