Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CHARLITE
"Roe v. Wade."

That 1973 decision was certainly an extreme example of judicial revision of our Constitution. The judges wanted to reach a particular political outcome, so they simply pretended to ground their decision in our founding document. They used a nonconstitutional "right to privacy" to create a "right" to abortion on demand."

Mr. Meese I have read Roe v. Wade several times.

Yes, it is true that the "judges wanted to reach a particular outcome," but it was not determined from an "unconstitutional right to privacy."

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people.

A right to privacy is surely a right "retained by the people."

What legalized abortion on demand emanating from the Roe v. Wade decision was the Court's arbitrary decision of when a fetus has the "right to privacy" as well.

The fetus, in the Court's view and decision, is not a human being until "viability," which is the utter folly and manufactured stupidity of the decision.

Thus, a fetus is rendered to nothing more than tissue in a woman's body such as a kidney or an eye, in which the "right to privacy" allows for her control of that tissue.

We all have the "right to privacy" to control our own bodies, no can deny that contention. The "right to privacy" was acknowledged 10 years prior to Roe v. Wade.

If a fetus was declared a human being, at conception for example, Roe v. Wade would be superfluous and moot.

And then the law could save babies again.

6 posted on 06/06/2005 3:59:11 PM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: tahiti
The Ninth Amendment gives no power to the federal courts to overturn a state law.

None.

"The move toward originalism is a marathon, not a sprint. "
How true. Everyone wants what they want, and they want it in the Constitution...

7 posted on 06/06/2005 4:40:00 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: tahiti
I agree with the point of your post. To say that a fetus is a non person is ludicrous.

The right to privacy emerged in Griswold v. Connecticut. It specifically declared the "right" of married men and women to obtain contraceptives. Soon it became a right (God given doncha know) to kill the unborn.

However, to say that A right to privacy is surely a right "retained by the people." is overly broad. Do the acts of pedophiles and wife beaters deserve privacy? I like the plain wording of 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 . . . "

Of course, few pay attention to the IV Amendment and our supremes ignore the IXth and Xth.

9 posted on 06/06/2005 4:48:40 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil the institutions they control)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: tahiti
Thus, a fetus is rendered to nothing more than tissue in a woman's body such as a kidney or an eye, in which the "right to privacy" allows for her control of that tissue.

That's not so. If her bodily organs were hers to "control" then presumably she should be able to sell them. She can't even sell her fetus, only kill it.

22 posted on 06/06/2005 7:34:09 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson