"Duck Dog" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:48:52 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

No logic? Abortion is the killing of an unborn child. Child.
If you were to shoot a pregnant woman, killing her and the unborn
child in virtually every one of the United States, you would be
charged with (2) two counts of murder. You can only murder a human
being. Ergo, that unborn tissue mass is a child.

And yet you claim to be pro-choice. Sounds like you're pretty
conflicted.

Hmm. Too bad I have to read Gunner's posts by proxy. Maybe I'll un-plonk
him. g

Anyway, Gunner, you're making the wrong argument, if your intention is to
undermine Roe v. Wade because of a supposed contradiction here. There is no
contradiction.

Roe is worth reading. Few people have bothered. There was a Bill Moyers
interview of Justice Stephens that sums it up nicely, for those who like the
condensed version.

It was decided as a potential conflict of rights. Stephens (and the Court)
argued that the right to privacy was established; the time of gestation at
which a fetus becomes imbued with human rights is not. The Constitution says
nothing about it. Further, the Court held that nothing in the Constitution
allows the government to make such a decision through legislation. There is
no Constitutional authority to make that judgment. Thus the phrase, "a
woman's right to choose."

This is predicated on the common-sense idea that at some point you are
dealing with an egg and a sperm, which are the property of individuals with
a private right to decide. At the time of birth and separation, likewise,
the common-sense (and common law, and broad historical) understanding is
that you now have a human life with individual rights. Where one becomes the
other is not illuminated by the Constitution. Also, contrary to what some
people suppose, it is not illuminated by history nor common law, either.
Until the late 19th century, abortion often was considered an issue for the
woman to decide. Even the Catholic Church didn't officially oppose it until,
I think, 1898.

But the right of a woman to privacy, and of the consequent right to decide
what is her body and what is not, is established under Griswold v.
Connecticut and the logical extension thereof. Thus, if there is a conflict
of rights, one such right is established, and the other is unknown. The
right to choose is affirmed by default.

The case of a double murder is based partly on this logic. If a woman is
carrying a fetus, it is presumed that she has, at that time at least,
decided that she is carrying a child that she intends to deliver. Thus,
someone who kills the gestating fetus has illegally usurped her right, her
decision about what is and what is not an individual human being, and thus
has committed murder, because SHE is presumed to have decided it was an
actual child. You may argue, but you will lose in court, because the weight
of law and precedent is overwhelmingly against you.

It's interesting to see what right-wing Justices say about all of this. This
is the dissenting opinion (Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, and Thomas)


"The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be
resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying
to persuade one another and then voting. . . . The issue is whether it [the
power of a woman to abort her unborn child] is a liberty protected by the
Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that
conclusion . . . because of two simple facts: (1) the Constitution says
absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American
society have permitted it to be legally proscribed."

Defenders of Constitutional Originalism take note: The conservative justices
are denying a right because THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZE
IT !, and because tradition have allowed it, REGARDLESS OF ANY RIGHTS THAT
MAY BE INVOLVED !

This sounds like conservative judge Bork on matters relating to the 10th
Amendment: If the Constitution doesn't specifically grant a right, it
doesn't exist, says Bork. Likewise in this case, say the conservative
Justices.

So much for conservatives and God-given rights, eh? Forget that the issue
here is abortion: just look at the principle. If it isn't spelled out, it
can't be a right. Thus, as Bork has implied, the 10th is utterly
meaningless.

This is why you libertarians don't want to see conservative Justices on the
bench. They'll gut the concept of Constitutional limitations of
Congressional authority.

Ed Huntress