"Bob Yates" wrote in message
nk.net...
Ned Simmons wrote:
In article idTGc.69545$kz.13495676
@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net, says...


Firstly, only humans have rights under law in the US. There is no
constitutional basis for establishing rights for anything other than a
human.

The unknown is the point at which a gestating fetus acquires the human
right
to due process under law. One traditional point of view is that this is
a
matter for elected legislatures to decide. Roe contradicted that by
saying
that there is no constitutional authority for legislatures to make such
a
decision *that would conflict with another, established right*. In other
words, state legislatures can make laws as long as they doesn't conflict
with rights. (Congress can only make laws that are within their
authority as
spelled out in the Constitution.)


I admit I've not read Roe, and don't know whether this
figures into the reasoning behind it, but the Constitution
and Bill of Rights make no mention of human or humans.
Rights are accorded to people, persons, or The People, not
humans. It seems to me, based on the dictionary definition
of human, that Roe could have gone the other way if the
word "human" was found in the Constitution in the proper
context. It's not there.

Ned Simmons

Seems to be a general overlooking of the background to Roe v. Wade.
Check out San Antonio v. Rodriguez and Buck v. Bell.

In Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), the Court refused to recognize a
substantive constitutional guarantee of the right to procreate.

In San Antonio v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), the Supreme Court held
that there is no federal constitutional right to an education. A bit
more obtuse in it's relation to Roe v. Wade, you would need to read the
court's decision for the reasoning, I am afraid I would just butcher it.

If those have been cited as precedent for Roe, it's over my head. San
Antonio was heard the very day before Roe was re-heard (the first Roe v.
Wade hearing fell apart because both attorneys screwed up). It was decided a
couple of months after Roe. Buck was a case in which the state *was*
presumed to have a compelling interest, which is almost the opposite of what
was decided in Roe.

So, you've got me. Roe cites a number of precedents, Griswold being a key
one, but I wasn't aware of these two.

Ed Huntress