|
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:08:56 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote: I had rather pray for you... pray that God shows you mercy and deliver you from the power or darkness... from you anger... from your rebellion... who knows his will concerning you... perhaps he will save you... perhaps he will reject you... I hope I'm given better treatment than the 6 million Jews that were marched into the Death Camps. The millions killed by the National Socialist Party of Germany... your father? |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:08:56 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote: DUTY TO WORSHIP GOD. **** that. I have no "duty" to do a goddamn thing other than to eat and ****, and hopefully **** every now and then. Don't like the history of America? The foundation that allows you to live like a lap dog in luxury and comfort? MIke |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:08:56 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote: Prove to me there is a God, and I will **** you TWO golden eggs. Lg Make it four golden eggs... and give me two as a down payment.. and I will show you God... you are such a liar.. I have to have a down payment.. Mike |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:12:28 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 00:55:06 -0500, Lawrence Glickman wrote: In Ca public schools Islam is required teaching in 7th and 8 grade. State law. If that is true, then America, especially California, needs to be burned to the ground so we all can Start Over. It is true you idiot.. just went through the high courts.... ... Oh, there you go again. The *high* courts. **** the high courts, and the middle courts, and the low courts, in that order. But I am glad you admitted your true feelings... the reprobate God haters.. always want to kill... to get their way... Every now and then, the gene pool has to be emptied and refilled. California is ****ed. First it is Afrocentric IOW, pacify the ******s so they don't rape your white daughters. Now it is becoming Islamocentric, IOW, show some sensitivity training to the Muslims and they will stop flying airliners into our skyscrapers. It has never been contested that it is ec-centric. Always violence... and just minutes ago.. you were going to blame the saints for war and violence... when it is YOU who is violent.. it is YOU who is full of hatred...... it is YOU who wants to murder.... Christianity has a sordid history of murder, torture, conquest, domination, all the evils you can think of. All in the name of their god, of course. That makes everything alright. And why oh why are Christian Priests all pedophiles ???? It's ALWAYS the same old story. |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:13:35 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:08:56 -0500, Lawrence Glickman wrote: I had rather pray for you... pray that God shows you mercy and deliver you from the power or darkness... from you anger... from your rebellion... who knows his will concerning you... perhaps he will save you... perhaps he will reject you... I hope I'm given better treatment than the 6 million Jews that were marched into the Death Camps. The millions killed by the National Socialist Party of Germany... your father? Don't make a joke of it ****head. I lost family over there to the Death Camps. Flesh and blood family. |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
... On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:13:47 GMT, Gunner wrote: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:00:37 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Go back in history and check it out, Mike. The anti-abortion laws started mostly in the 1870s, and they were never applicable to the majority. They were enacted with no Constitutional authority whatsoever. No Constitutional authority? Since when did that ever stop a politician? Speed limits mentioned in the Constitution? Gun Control? Smoking dope? I dont believe you actually made that statement.......blink blink.... And then we have "all other powers shall be left to the states or the people" I seem to have seen that in one of the Amendments somewhere.... Gunner Gunner.. I don't know what happened to Ed.. he is normally better informed.... must of woke up in the middle of the night.. still hung over from party.. etc.. and just wasn't awake... Let's give him the benefit of the doubt... Mike Not having read Gunner's complete post (or maybe I just did?), I hesitate to argue with him, except on the points you've quoted he Gunner, there is a Constitutional basis for all of those laws, whether you agree with them or not, but not for deciding when life begins -- whichever side of the argument you're on. There's just nothing there. To take your examples: Gun control is still an undecided issue. You know the primary basis of argument because we've discussed it before. First, it's the relative status of the original authorities, and the highest one, which is the debates over the Bill of Rights in the First Congress, doesn't do the RKBA any favors. That's why even extremely conservative, originalist jurists like Robert Bork sometimes find against the RKBA. The state of Constitutional argument on that one is the majority decisions in recent, relevant cases by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts. And we've discussed that one, too. So you know that there is still a debate over the Constitutional issue. Regarding speed limits, mostly state's rights issues, public safety and all that. No conflict at all because it isn't a federal issue. If it were (or if someone challenged speed limits in national parks, for example), there would be little trouble finding for such laws under executive police authority, in combination with Congress's authority to create and maintain post roads. All federal roads are post roads. Smoking dope is another one that may not be settled, although the Court has upheld the 1914 anti-drug act as a legitimate power of taxation by Congress. You'd have to get into that one with the lawyers. But there is nothing in the Constitution about deciding when life begins. The only reference, somewhere, is one to rights of "persons born in the United States." The Court didn't try to make too much of this in Roe, except to point out that there is nothing else in the Constitution that's even remotely related to the question. So, the Court has decided that it has no basis on which to decide. If you want to see the other point of view, read Rehnquist's dissent in Roe. I happen to think it's one of Rehnquist's weaker efforts, and, apparently, so does the majority of the Court. Ed Huntress |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
... On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:41:06 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote: but then.. maybe abortion isn't so bad after all.. Killing all those babies left the US with 40,000,000 less Democrats. There ya' go. There's the moral posture of the anti-rights crowd in a nutshell. It's Ok to abort a fetus as long as it might be one of your political opponents. Why stop there? If you think that fetuses are babies, and that it's Ok to kill them if they're likely to be born to parents of the wrong political party, why not kill the babies of Democrats who are actually born? That's being a *real* pro-lifer. You shouldn't have any moral problem with that, right? Ed Huntress So you are trying to turn your approval of killing babies into me killling people because of their political party... ?? Are you that desperate? Hey, you're the one who said it. See above. g You build strawmen as well as the left.... You don't think fetuses are babies.. so you kill them... 'Never killed one yet, Mike, and I'm sure I never will. OTOH, you seem to favor the idea yourself, as long as they're Democrats. See above. d8-) Ed Huntress |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:14:28 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:08:56 -0500, Lawrence Glickman wrote: DUTY TO WORSHIP GOD. **** that. I have no "duty" to do a goddamn thing other than to eat and ****, and hopefully **** every now and then. Don't like the history of America? The foundation that allows you to live like a lap dog in luxury and comfort? Are you kidding me? I have lived a _tortured_ Life. You wouldn't trade places for me for all the money in the world. Otoh, I am a strong man. I have a soft heart for women and children and animals, but I am a goddamn ****ing concrete wall when it comes to ****heads and adversity. I carry on for the women, children, and animals. They give me something to live for, a reason for being. I try to add VALUE to their lives, in some small ways, that they may or may not appreciate. My happiness, what little of it there is, comes from giving of myself to help them in any way I can. I expect nothing in return. I ask for nothing in return. Oh I would love it if some lady reciprocated, but that isn't likely to happen. Still, I give what I can to help others. Never false Hope. Only things that are in the here and now. Lg |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:22:38 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote: And why oh why are Christian Priests all pedophiles ???? It's ALWAYS the same old story. Now there you go.... Pedophiles.??.. I don't think so.. they were homosexauls who were seducing and abusing teen age boys.. Cliff-Glick is really spreading quickly to all parts of your brain.. Glick.. you have to break that sheeple mentality.. and think for yourself... you sound alike a parrot.. spouting the same old Atheistic hate speech... Last chance for a discount F.A.G, membership bracelet. Mike Garvey... are you still blaming the Roman Church because homosexual predators lied, cheated, and sneaked their way through seminary to seduce teenage boys? That is a good one.... Lets Call this the Wisdom of Garvey |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:16:11 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:08:56 -0500, Lawrence Glickman wrote: Prove to me there is a God, and I will **** you TWO golden eggs. Lg Make it four golden eggs... and give me two as a down payment.. and I will show you God... you are such a liar.. I have to have a down payment.. Tell you what we'll do. Jesus turned water into wine, no? Then he can turn my turds into Golden Eggs. I'll send you two turds as soon as you send me your mailing address. Mike |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:23:56 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
wrote: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:13:35 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike wrote: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:08:56 -0500, Lawrence Glickman wrote: I had rather pray for you... pray that God shows you mercy and deliver you from the power or darkness... from you anger... from your rebellion... who knows his will concerning you... perhaps he will save you... perhaps he will reject you... I hope I'm given better treatment than the 6 million Jews that were marched into the Death Camps. The millions killed by the National Socialist Party of Germany... your father? Don't make a joke of it ****head. I lost family over there to the Death Camps. Flesh and blood family. I'm sorry to hear that.... I can understand your anger to God.. and you emotional attachment to a secular, socialist government... You have emotional scars and fear so you emotionally join the party that you feel is responsible for you misery.. and hatred... and pain... Stockholm Syndrome is the name I believe.. Willl take the hand of God to deliver you from such mental anguish and bondage. Mike "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:30:59 GMT, Santa Cruz Mike
wrote: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 01:22:38 -0500, Lawrence Glickman wrote: And why oh why are Christian Priests all pedophiles ???? It's ALWAYS the same old story. Now there you go.... Pedophiles.??.. I don't think so.. they were homosexauls who were seducing and abusing teen age boys.. And the difference is? What they have done is DESTROYED human lives. They deserve to go up the chimneys for what they have done, which, by the way, is CRIMINAL, as in Felony Criminal. they are hidden away, while the Church pays huge bribes to victims, in the millions of dollars, so their pedophilic priests can stay out of jail where they will get butt-****ed and then decapitated. Nothing is lower than a child abuser. Even convicts despise them. The lowest of the low. These are your leaders. The scum of the earth. Cliff-Glick is really spreading quickly to all parts of your brain.. Thankfully Glick.. you have to break that sheeple mentality.. and think for yourself... you sound alike a parrot.. spouting the same old Atheistic hate speech... There is no hate in me for you, just pity. Last chance for a discount F.A.G, membership bracelet. What do I get for it? Mike Garvey... are you still blaming the Roman Church because homosexual predators lied, cheated, and sneaked their way through seminary to seduce teenage boys? That is a good one.... Lets Call this the Wisdom of Garvey |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
"Santa Cruz Mike" wrote in message
... the point you made was that Clinton could have been aborted because abortions were easily availble... I beg your pardon. I said no such thing. I said they were *legal*, as early-term abortions were legal in several other states before 1970 or so. they were not... they were only sometimes available for rape, incest, and the mother's health... the laws until the 1930-60 were still based on old common laws.. and abortion was considered murder... Bull****. You don't know the common law. Go back to the books, Mike. The common-law-derived state laws regarding abortion allowed early-term abortion. That's the "old" common law. After 1860, English common law changed. Some US state laws changed with it. For the most part, they made early-term abortions a misdemeanor. In a few cases, it was made a felony. But not universally so. There still was no uniform principle, right up to the time that Roe v Wade was decided. That's why the Court determined there was no principle of right or of common law (the "old" law is the only one that's generally recognized in US Supreme Court decisions, and then only as a secondary source of authority) that determined when life begins, or when rights are acquired. There was only vacillating opinion, and vacillating laws, which is precisely what the principle of rights, and the Bill of Rights, is supposed to protect us against. So in otherwords... the possiblity exist that president Clinton might not be here if abortions were as easy then as now.. I mean.. knocked up young mother, white.. no fatther... one nighter.. ******* child.. ... Planned Parenthood.. would of gotten that one!! And no President Clinton... Funny how the left supports so many moral decisions and laws.. that would put their very existence into jeopardy... So, what do you suppose would have happened to all those unwanted, cross-species pregnancies that produce right-wingers? d8-) Ed Huntress |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:52:57 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: There was only vacillating opinion, and vacillating laws, which is precisely what the principle of rights, and the Bill of Rights, is supposed to protect us against. I wonder why SCOTUS hasnt addressed blue laws. Dry Counties, no liquor sales on Sunday in some places.... talk about vacillating laws.. geeze.. Firearms legal in 47 states not legal in the remaining 3, drivers licenses honored in all 50 states from state to state, but concealed weapons permits are not... Any idea why Ed? Gunner That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:24:24 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: Regarding speed limits, mostly state's rights issues, public safety and all that. No conflict at all because it isn't a federal issue So why isnt abortion a States Rights Issue? It would appear to me, that the States Rights issue is only called into play by Liberals who are using incrimentalism, and denied at any other time if it comes into conflict with their agendas. Gunner That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
In article , "Ken Davey"
writes: A very interesting exercise; The next time one of the 'representatives' of (insert the religious organization de-jour) knocks on your door invite him to expound on his/her ideas - *but* - forbid any book reference (bible, koran or whatever - this includes quoting the 'profits' unless said quote was obtained first-hand ). This is about like asking Gunner to think without blogs .... or a right-winger without repeating lies ... from what I've seen here. -- Cliff |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
Santa Cruz Mike wrote
but then.. maybe abortion isn't so bad after all.. Killing all those babies left the US with 40,000,000 less Democrats. Mike One draw back might be that the baby boomers will miss those 40,000,000 taxpayers (1/3 of a generation) when it comes time to pay for their retirement. G.W. |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message et...
Oh, I think you misunderstand the principle at work here, Mike. You're entitled to your beliefs, of course. But your beliefs, or Kerry's, can't be used to usurp the Constitution. However, Kerry has a perfect right to act on his own beliefs. That's what the Roe v. Wade decision was all about. The next time he's pregnant, we'll expect him to bring that fetus to term -- unless he's a hypocrite, of course. And the same applies to George W. Bush. d8-) John Kerry understands that an unborn baby is a human being. He isn't trying to fool himself like many other people do with ideas that it isn't really a "person" until it's born. He knows that the baby originates from conception. But John Kerry doesn't care because he has made the determination that politics is more important than human life. People speak of abortion in the same breath with the Constitution. Does the constitution really say that abortion for any reason is a "right"? Where does it say that, right next to the phrase "separation of church and state"? It doesn't take a lawyer to read something that isn't there, only a liberal. G.W. |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
"G. Wood" wrote in message
om... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message et... Oh, I think you misunderstand the principle at work here, Mike. You're entitled to your beliefs, of course. But your beliefs, or Kerry's, can't be used to usurp the Constitution. However, Kerry has a perfect right to act on his own beliefs. That's what the Roe v. Wade decision was all about. The next time he's pregnant, we'll expect him to bring that fetus to term -- unless he's a hypocrite, of course. And the same applies to George W. Bush. d8-) John Kerry understands that an unborn baby is a human being. He isn't trying to fool himself like many other people do with ideas that it isn't really a "person" until it's born. He knows that the baby originates from conception. But John Kerry doesn't care because he has made the determination that politics is more important than human life. John Kerry has an opinion about it, and you have an opinion about it. As it is, the rights that the rest of us have are not subject to the opinion of either you or John Kerry. That would be true even if he were elected president. If you can get an amendment passed to take away the right to abortion, you will get your opinion ensconsed as law. If not, not. Even this very active, conservative Court is not likely to overturn Roe. They had at least one solid opportunity to do so and they refused. People speak of abortion in the same breath with the Constitution. Does the constitution really say that abortion for any reason is a "right"? Where does it say that, right next to the phrase "separation of church and state"? It doesn't take a lawyer to read something that isn't there, only a liberal. As a conservative yourself, G.W., I'm surprised and disappointed to see that you apparently grant only those rights that are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have to say that abortion, for some reason or any reason, is "right." What it has to say is that it's wrong; or, at the very least, it has to say explicitly that the government is granted authority to legislate about the subject in question. One way it could do that is to define when a fetus acquires the right to due process, but it makes no comment upon that at all. Thus, there is no such legislative authority granted in the Constitution. So a case like this reverts to a question of rights, potentially rights in conflict. The basis on which the case was decided, and the present law of the land, is that there is no basis for the government to decide the controversial question of when life begins. And so it defaults to the rights that *are* established, which includes the right to life of the mother and her privacy. If you have a legal argument that opposes this, rather than just an opinion about how things ought to be, it will be interesting to hear it. Ed Huntress |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
In article , Gunner says...
So why isnt abortion a States Rights Issue? For the same reason "The War on Drugs" isn't. Natch. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
Ed Huntress wrote:
John Kerry has an opinion about it, and you have an opinion about it. As it is, the rights that the rest of us have are not subject to the opinion of either you or John Kerry. That would be true even if he were elected president. If you can get an amendment passed to take away the right to abortion, you will get your opinion ensconsed as law. If not, not. Even this very active, conservative Court is not likely to overturn Roe. They had at least one solid opportunity to do so and they refused. As a conservative yourself, G.W., I'm surprised and disappointed to see that you apparently grant only those rights that are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have to say that abortion, for some reason or any reason, is "right." What it has to say is that it's wrong; or, at the very least, it has to say explicitly that the government is granted authority to legislate about the subject in question. One way it could do that is to define when a fetus acquires the right to due process, but it makes no comment upon that at all. Thus, there is no such legislative authority granted in the Constitution. So a case like this reverts to a question of rights, potentially rights in conflict. The basis on which the case was decided, and the present law of the land, is that there is no basis for the government to decide the controversial question of when life begins. And so it defaults to the rights that *are* established, which includes the right to life of the mother and her privacy. If you have a legal argument that opposes this, rather than just an opinion about how things ought to be, it will be interesting to hear it. Putting everything else about the "abortion debate" aside, you've raised in interesting issue, Ed. Whenever ANY document, doctrine, or whatever, mentions "rights", it seems to me that any logical person would just automatically and necessarily ask an extremely obvious question: Rights for whom? The folks who wrote the constitution, being (like all of us) products of their times, thought they had the answer. That's why women couldn't vote, and slavery wasn't abolished in 1789, and Indians were excluded from most of the rights reserved for "real" Americans, etc. As times change, so do the things we include in our definitions of "common sense". Today, we like to think that we're infinitely more enlightened than those who preceded us, and that the proper definitions are obvious. That's why we all believe in universal rights, and in the idea that every human being is important, and needs to be considered in our plans, laws, and beliefs. Except for those under 18 years old, who can't vote, drink alchohol, smoke tobacco, serve in the armed forces, etc. Or those under 16 years old, who can't get ANY job without special permits and working papers, and can't legally refuse to finish state-mandated education requirements. Or those who teach in public (and many other) schools, and who have no right to exclude students from their classrooms just because they consider those students to be disruptive or dangerous. Or those who own or operate businesses, and who therefore have no right to practice "discrimination" in their choice of customers. Or those with enough money that the rest of us think we can get away with taking it from them through taxes. Or those who own land on which certain special plant or animals happen to live. Or unborn children - as long as they're more than six months away from a projected birth date. Or the mothers-to-be of unborn children who are LESS than six months from a projected birth date. Or those accused of certain "special" kinds of crimes, who have no right to due process. Or... Well, you get the idea. Tomorrow, for sure, folks will STILL believe that they've achieved some special kind of enlightenment, and will look back at us with pity. And the day after that... KG |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
In article , Gunner says...
The pro abortion crowd cannot stand the idea ... Why don't you go rustle some of them up, and have the discussion with *them*. I don't see anyone here arguing that abortion is desireable or good. Or even a decent method of birth control. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
In article , Gunner says...
So how come human sacrifice is illegal, even under the guise of a pagan religion, Because the bill of rights is not an absolute. In spite of what you think. The first amendment does not give one the right, on religious grounds, to deny medical care for a child. The courts interpret the constitution. It does NOT exist in a vacuum. You *never* seem to get this. Jim ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message
s.com... snip Most of what you've listed are cases of conflicting rights, Kirk. They've been resolved as cases that required a decision. The decision-making power is implicit in the necessity of resolving a conflict of rights, ranging from issues of eminent domain to the question of which races are "men," and whether "man" is used in the exclusive or inclusive sense, both of which appear in founding documents of the US. You've also tossed in a case or two of due process, in which rights are limited through due process of law. The trouble with the abortion issue is that there is no Constitutional basis for assigning rights to the unborn. Nothing. Not even history and common law. If you know of one, there are some people who would love to hear about it. Ed Huntress |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
Ed Huntress wrote:
Most of what you've listed are cases of conflicting rights, Kirk. They've been resolved as cases that required a decision. The decision-making power is implicit in the necessity of resolving a conflict of rights, ranging from issues of eminent domain to the question of which races are "men," and whether "man" is used in the exclusive or inclusive sense, both of which appear in founding documents of the US. You've also tossed in a case or two of due process, in which rights are limited through due process of law. The trouble with the abortion issue is that there is no Constitutional basis for assigning rights to the unborn. Nothing. Not even history and common law. If you know of one, there are some people who would love to hear about it. I'll accept the idea of conflicting rights as a matter of semantics, I guess; but I can't think of how or why I'd have come into conflict with someone else's rights when I was 13 years old and needed a job; or if I'd wanted to smoke cigarettes before I was 18. And issues of discrimination are only conflicts if you accept the idea that a consumer who walks into my place of business has a "right" to shop there. The word "rights" has too often become interchangeable with politically attractive privileges, which creates "conflicts" that shouldn't even exist. Still, the basic question is how (or if, or why, or when) we define the particular life-forms that do and don't have rights. Whether the question is about a snail-darter in the Tennessee River, or an unborn fetus in the womb, it seems to me that our lawmakers have an obligation to establish definitions as a pre-condition for passing a law. And our courts have an obligation to test the definitions as carefully and thoroughly as they test any other aspect of any legislation. As you say, there's no constitutional basis for assigning rights to the unborn. To me, that means we need to ESTABLISH some clear definitions about what rights are, and whom/what they apply to, BEFORE we attempt to pass laws of any kind. As you've pointed out many times, the constitution is mostly concerned with limiting what the government can do, rather than "granting" rights, or assuming that rights don't exist until the law specifically addresses them. Even if viewed as a "conflict" between the rights of the unborn and the rights of pregnant women, I see no way that the law can properly attempt to respect the rights of an unborn entity until and unless specific, detailed, and court-tested definitions establish that entity to be human. Those ideas which OFFER themselves as precedents, incidentally, and which claim to provide the needed definition, all seem to me to come from religious traditions, rather than legal history. This expands the problem of abortion related legislation to include questions about separation of church and state - which are themselves contentious and complex issues. This usually has the result of making the "abortion debate" more complex and more nasty, rather than providing any actual help or sanity. It's also worth considering, I think, that any attempt to actually define an unborn baby as human, and to respect even a limited set of rights, is an absolutely unique and unparalleled problem for a more basic reason than just precedent or religious/moral matters. There are no other legal questions I can think of in which two different entities, each with rights and each entitled to legal protection, happen to inhabit the same body. My hand has no legal standing to sue my ear. My face can't file a criminal complaint against my foot, if the foot happens to slip off the brake pedal and cause my face to get mashed against the steering wheel. In fact, even parts of me that are separated from my body (blood donations, or cells stored in a semen-bank, or tissues removed by surgery - which might have been viable if they hadn't been separated from the rest of me), aren't considered by law to have rights of their own, which might come into conflict with my rights as a whole human being. An unborn child, however, if recognized as human, would create some unique conflicts that could ONLY be resolved, I think, by the most subjective and arbitrary kinds of decisions. Even from those who are completely in favor of limiting or abolishing abortions, I've never heard any sensible answer about HOW an unborn child's rights could be expressed and protected, except by stripping the mother of a SUBSTANTIAL portion of her own rights. If a parent neglects to feed or care for an infant or a toddler, that's normally considered a crime. But if a pregnant woman neglects to properly feed or care for herself, then would her unborn child be entitled to protection, just like the infant or toddler? Would we take the fetus away from the mother, and place it in a state-appoved womb, so that it could get the care and nutrition it needs? Would we prosecute the mother, or place her in a state institution and force-feed her? What if a pregnant mother lived in poverty, and didn't have enough food, and decided to feed her infant and her toddler instead of herself? Under many circumstances, such a woman might be considered heroic or noble. But if she's pregnant, and if she's feeding her "live" children at the expense of an unborn one, does she suddenly become a criminal? Obviously, I don't have answers to these questions; but I have a problem with a government that even CONSIDERS legislation it has no plans - and possibly no way at all - to administer or enforce. If a fetus has rights - ANY rights - then those must certainly include the right to expect the government to protect it, and to know HOW to protect it. If we don't require our lawmakers to know how a piece of legislation can be applied or enforced, then we might as well just outlaw death, as a way to protect our right to life. And we could prohibit earthquakes, as a way to protect property, and to avoid the terrible cost and tragedy of large-scale disasters. Until some uncommonly wise (and brave) legislator tells me EXACTLY what rights a fetus ought to have, and HOW those rights will be protected, I can't accept the idea that there can BE any legal conflict between the mother and the fetus. Abortion is just the most visible, most overt, and most easily grasped part of the question about whether a fetus is human. That's the only reason it's become the center and focus of an endless debate, rather than just one aspect of something more important and fundamental. If a fetus has any rights at all, then abortion is just ONE way to violate them. I consider it a measure of the cowardice of our elected leaders, and the brain-laziness of a very large segment of our population, that one small part of the question can become such a magnet for debate and acrimony (and even homicide, in some cases), while the core issue of what rights are, and who has them, and how they might REALLY be protected, is so seldom even mentioned. The debate will NEVER end, of course, because we're not even arguing about the right things. KG |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message . net...
"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message s.com... snip Most of what you've listed are cases of conflicting rights, Kirk. They've been resolved as cases that required a decision. The decision-making power is implicit in the necessity of resolving a conflict of rights, ranging from issues of eminent domain to the question of which races are "men," and whether "man" is used in the exclusive or inclusive sense, both of which appear in founding documents of the US. You've also tossed in a case or two of due process, in which rights are limited through due process of law. The trouble with the abortion issue is that there is no Constitutional basis for assigning rights to the unborn. Nothing. Not even history and common law. Hmmm. If a child was miscarried or born dead, was it buried with a name? If you know of one, there are some people who would love to hear about it. Ed Huntress Perhaps it was so unspeakable in the late 1700's that it could not be mentioned. |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On 6 Jul 2004 10:32:50 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... The pro abortion crowd cannot stand the idea ... Why don't you go rustle some of them up, and have the discussion with *them*. I don't see anyone here arguing that abortion is desireable or good. Or even a decent method of birth control. Yep. Only that it shouldn't be prohibited. I've yet to see an explanation of what public benefit would derive from a prohibition of abortion. The damage done by such prohibition I'm already familiar with from my past. Al Moore |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:29:37 GMT, Kirk Gordon
wrote: Ed Huntress wrote: John Kerry has an opinion about it, and you have an opinion about it. As it is, the rights that the rest of us have are not subject to the opinion of either you or John Kerry. That would be true even if he were elected president. If you can get an amendment passed to take away the right to abortion, you will get your opinion ensconsed as law. If not, not. Even this very active, conservative Court is not likely to overturn Roe. They had at least one solid opportunity to do so and they refused. As a conservative yourself, G.W., I'm surprised and disappointed to see that you apparently grant only those rights that are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have to say that abortion, for some reason or any reason, is "right." What it has to say is that it's wrong; or, at the very least, it has to say explicitly that the government is granted authority to legislate about the subject in question. One way it could do that is to define when a fetus acquires the right to due process, but it makes no comment upon that at all. Thus, there is no such legislative authority granted in the Constitution. So a case like this reverts to a question of rights, potentially rights in conflict. The basis on which the case was decided, and the present law of the land, is that there is no basis for the government to decide the controversial question of when life begins. And so it defaults to the rights that *are* established, which includes the right to life of the mother and her privacy. If you have a legal argument that opposes this, rather than just an opinion about how things ought to be, it will be interesting to hear it. Putting everything else about the "abortion debate" aside, you've raised in interesting issue, Ed. Whenever ANY document, doctrine, or whatever, mentions "rights", it seems to me that any logical person would just automatically and necessarily ask an extremely obvious question: Rights for whom? The folks who wrote the constitution, being (like all of us) products of their times, thought they had the answer. That's why women couldn't vote, and slavery wasn't abolished in 1789, and Indians were excluded from most of the rights reserved for "real" Americans, etc. As times change, so do the things we include in our definitions of "common sense". Today, we like to think that we're infinitely more enlightened than those who preceded us, and that the proper definitions are obvious. That's why we all believe in universal rights, and in the idea that every human being is important, and needs to be considered in our plans, laws, and beliefs. Except for those under 18 years old, who can't vote, drink alchohol, smoke tobacco, serve in the armed forces, etc. Or those under 16 years old, who can't get ANY job without special permits and working papers, and can't legally refuse to finish state-mandated education requirements. Or those who teach in public (and many other) schools, and who have no right to exclude students from their classrooms just because they consider those students to be disruptive or dangerous. Or those who own or operate businesses, and who therefore have no right to practice "discrimination" in their choice of customers. Or those with enough money that the rest of us think we can get away with taking it from them through taxes. Or those who own land on which certain special plant or animals happen to live. Or unborn children - as long as they're more than six months away from a projected birth date. Or the mothers-to-be of unborn children who are LESS than six months from a projected birth date. Or those accused of certain "special" kinds of crimes, who have no right to due process. Or... Well, you get the idea. Tomorrow, for sure, folks will STILL believe that they've achieved some special kind of enlightenment, and will look back at us with pity. And the day after that... KG Ho Ho.. Hum Drum... whine and cry the sky is falling... Ever thought about "lead to the head" therapy to put yourself out of your misery Kirk? sheeple.. sheesh.. so burned out.. and unhappy... Mike |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
"William" wrote in message
m... "Ed Huntress" wrote in message . net... "Kirk Gordon" wrote in message s.com... snip Most of what you've listed are cases of conflicting rights, Kirk. They've been resolved as cases that required a decision. The decision-making power is implicit in the necessity of resolving a conflict of rights, ranging from issues of eminent domain to the question of which races are "men," and whether "man" is used in the exclusive or inclusive sense, both of which appear in founding documents of the US. You've also tossed in a case or two of due process, in which rights are limited through due process of law. The trouble with the abortion issue is that there is no Constitutional basis for assigning rights to the unborn. Nothing. Not even history and common law. Hmmm. If a child was miscarried or born dead, was it buried with a name? Well, is it? Does it have a legal name before it's born? No? Hmmm. If you know of one, there are some people who would love to hear about it. Ed Huntress Perhaps it was so unspeakable in the late 1700's that it could not be mentioned. Not only was it not "unspeakable," it was *legal* until roughly the middle of the second term in every state until the 1820s, in some states through the 1960s, and most churches into the 1870s. As the Supreme Court said in the Roe decision, anti-abortion laws are relatively recent, and are not part of the common law or the Constitution at the time it was written. The most accurate way to describe them is that they are part of the religious and cultural divide that was based on a new moralism that really began with changes in English common law around 1860. The country split on the issue as well as several others beginning around that time. On abortion, it's still split. It has nothing to do with the Enlightenment, with the spread of human rights, or with the founding principles of the US, including the Constitution. It's purely religious and cultural. Ed Huntress |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 19:41:52 GMT, Kirk Gordon
wrote: Until some uncommonly wise (and brave) legislator tells me EXACTLY what rights a fetus ought to have, and HOW those rights will be protected, I can't accept the idea that there can BE any legal conflict between the mother and the fetus. Abortion is just the most visible, most overt, and most easily grasped part of the question about whether a fetus is human. That's the only reason it's become the center and focus of an endless debate, rather than just one aspect of something more important and fundamental. If a fetus has any rights at all, then abortion is just ONE way to violate them. I consider it a measure of the cowardice of our elected leaders, and the brain-laziness of a very large segment of our population, that one small part of the question can become such a magnet for debate and acrimony (and even homicide, in some cases), while the core issue of what rights are, and who has them, and how they might REALLY be protected, is so seldom even mentioned. The debate will NEVER end, of course, because we're not even arguing about the right things. KG Bravo! Excellently done! Gunner, Pro Choice "The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of their insanity is that they actually believe this." -- someone in misc.survivalism |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On 6 Jul 2004 10:34:50 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article , Gunner says... So how come human sacrifice is illegal, even under the guise of a pagan religion, Because the bill of rights is not an absolute. In spite of what you think. The first amendment does not give one the right, on religious grounds, to deny medical care for a child. Why not? Its separation of church and state..and after all..its not like a child was human or anything. Just a parasitic tissue mass. The courts interpret the constitution. It does NOT exist in a vacuum. You *never* seem to get this. Jim So then its pick and choose which rights you want to promote, and which ones you want to nullify or ignore. Correct? Gunner "The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of their insanity is that they actually believe this." -- someone in misc.survivalism |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Gunner
fosted Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:13:21 GMT on misc.survivalism , viz: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:41:06 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Why stop there? If you think that fetuses are babies, and that it's Ok to kill them if they're likely to be born to parents of the wrong political party, why not kill the babies of Democrats who are actually born? Thanks for making my case Ed. Though to be fair..abortion of Democrat babies would fall under the clause of badly damaged fetus's so it might be considered a moral and humane thing. The "interesting" observation is to say to those who oppose abortion when you say "You realize, that abortions are largely done on Those People(tm)?" Short circuit as they realize that the pro-abortion faction is the one which is eliminating themselves from the future. The decline in support for the Demcorats/liberals amongst the 18-29 demographic is not too factitiously referred to as "the Roe Effect". tschus pyotr -- pyotr filipivich "Do not argue with the forces of nature, for you are small, insignificant, and biodegradable." |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 04:51:21 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote: It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Gunner fosted Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:13:21 GMT on misc.survivalism , viz: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:41:06 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote: Why stop there? If you think that fetuses are babies, and that it's Ok to kill them if they're likely to be born to parents of the wrong political party, why not kill the babies of Democrats who are actually born? Thanks for making my case Ed. Though to be fair..abortion of Democrat babies would fall under the clause of badly damaged fetus's so it might be considered a moral and humane thing. The "interesting" observation is to say to those who oppose abortion when you say "You realize, that abortions are largely done on Those People(tm)?" Short circuit as they realize that the pro-abortion faction is the one which is eliminating themselves from the future. The decline in support for the Demcorats/liberals amongst the 18-29 demographic is not too factitiously referred to as "the Roe Effect". oooooooo...Id not thought of that. Way cool! Gunner, Pro Liberal Abortion. tschus pyotr "The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of their insanity is that they actually believe this." -- someone in misc.survivalism |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
"Kirk Gordon" wrote in message
s.com... Ed Huntress wrote: Most of what you've listed are cases of conflicting rights, Kirk. They've been resolved as cases that required a decision. The decision-making power is implicit in the necessity of resolving a conflict of rights, ranging from issues of eminent domain to the question of which races are "men," and whether "man" is used in the exclusive or inclusive sense, both of which appear in founding documents of the US. You've also tossed in a case or two of due process, in which rights are limited through due process of law. The trouble with the abortion issue is that there is no Constitutional basis for assigning rights to the unborn. Nothing. Not even history and common law. If you know of one, there are some people who would love to hear about it. I'll accept the idea of conflicting rights as a matter of semantics, I guess; but I can't think of how or why I'd have come into conflict with someone else's rights when I was 13 years old and needed a job; Children have always been subject to protections by the state, from exploitation and other abuses. It's embedded deep in common law. It's best to stick to adults if you want to reason your way through this. or if I'd wanted to smoke cigarettes before I was 18. You're still dealing with children. And issues of discrimination are only conflicts if you accept the idea that a consumer who walks into my place of business has a "right" to shop there. That's a question of how far civil liberties go. Notice, in contrast to Roe, there is no question that there are civil rights involved here, and that people have a right to equal treatment under law. You can argue, however, whether extending that to treatment in places of public accomodation (your place of business) is appropriate. So in that case you're dealing with a conflict of rights, both of them established under law. In Roe, there is no established right on one side of the issue. The Court also held that there is no constitutional basis on which one could be established. The word "rights" has too often become interchangeable with politically attractive privileges, which creates "conflicts" that shouldn't even exist. Which makes it especially important to keep your head and to follow the legal reasoning in order to make any sense of it at all. Most people haven't even read Roe. Most people don't have a clue about what the basis is of the law regarding abortion, therefore, and how rights are involved in it. Still, the basic question is how (or if, or why, or when) we define the particular life-forms that do and don't have rights. 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.) Whether the question is about a snail-darter in the Tennessee River, or an unborn fetus in the womb, it seems to me that our lawmakers have an obligation to establish definitions as a pre-condition for passing a law. Firstly, legislators have NO authority to establish definitions of rights, or to decide who has them. That's a constitutional issue, and constitutional issues are decided by the courts. Furthermore, there is no rights issue involved in the case of snail darters. g That's an administrative issue based upon legislation that applies due process of law to restrict the property owners. No rights conflicts are involved, only a due-process limitation of rights. Secondly, the point of Roe is that this is not a question of what rights are or who has them. The question is, what is a "who." And our courts have an obligation to test the definitions as carefully and thoroughly as they test any other aspect of any legislation. Again, the legislators have no authority to make such definitions in the first place. Rights are a constitutional issue, not a legislative issue. Legislators pass laws, not rights. As you say, there's no constitutional basis for assigning rights to the unborn. To me, that means we need to ESTABLISH some clear definitions about what rights are, and whom/what they apply to, BEFORE we attempt to pass laws of any kind. In a general sense, that wouldn't be practical, and it would violate a basic principle of the Constitution that's stated in the 9th and 10th Amendments. You can't anticipate every potential piece of legislation. That's why we have courts. Second, the courts decide these issues on the narrowest possible terms. That's because they can't anticipate future legislation -- back to point one. When they establish a principle, it's usually construed to deal only with the narrow range of cases represented by the case before them. That's an ancient and necessary principle of jurisprudence. There also is this complication. This statement from another case heard by the Supreme Court, written by Justice Harlan (Poe v. Ullman), spells out the mainstream understanding of the status of rights, and the implication of the 9th Amendment: "The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment." The alternative is a narrow construction that says the only rights are those spelled out in the Bill of Rights. That's judge Bork, for example, and the hard-line conservative point of view. Harlan's statement might be called the libertarian point of view, but it's actually the liberal point of view -- which has been the mainstream constitutional view for at least 50 of the past 70 years. It's been described as a right to be left alone, unless there is a compelling reason to restrict what you do. Figuring out what belongs on the "continuum," such as a right to privacy, is the business of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court. The broad view that the Constitution requires "freedom from all substantial artitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" requires endless interpretation of the Constitution. Thus, if you favor this view of individual liberty, you can't favor conservative jurisprudence. The two are diametrically opposed. Taken together, all of this means that you can't "define" rights without limiting them, and the Constitution is open-ended about individual rights. If you try to define them before the fact, you necessarily limit them to what you put on your list. You can't do that and at the same time maintain the underlying idea that liberty is the right to be left alone. As you've pointed out many times, the constitution is mostly concerned with limiting what the government can do, rather than "granting" rights, or assuming that rights don't exist until the law specifically addresses them. Even if viewed as a "conflict" between the rights of the unborn and the rights of pregnant women, I see no way that the law can properly attempt to respect the rights of an unborn entity until and unless specific, detailed, and court-tested definitions establish that entity to be human. The issue would be a conflict of rights if there was a basis for establishing the rights of the unborn. There is not. That's the crucial point of Roe. Note that I have said *potential* conflict of rights in all of my discussion about it here. The potential is never realized because there is no legal basis for an unborn's rights. It might be a good point to clarify that these are not my ideas. These are Justice Blackmun and Justice Stewart's ideas. Most constitutional scholars, including the other Justices, agree with them. That's why Roe hasn't been overturned. It would open up a real hornets' nest and grant the states a new principle to define rights if it were overturned. The toothpaste is out of the tube, in other words. Even judge Bork has said that, although he disagrees with the ruling in Roe, he would not vote to overturn it now. The ruling in Roe has given us an insight into rights that can be used by either side, if it's overturned, and the resulting principle would be a dangerous one. Those ideas which OFFER themselves as precedents, incidentally, and which claim to provide the needed definition, all seem to me to come from religious traditions, rather than legal history. This expands the problem of abortion related legislation to include questions about separation of church and state - which are themselves contentious and complex issues. This usually has the result of making the "abortion debate" more complex and more nasty, rather than providing any actual help or sanity. Sure. The argument is almost entirely a religious one, which becomes a philosophical one in a secular government. If there is no constitutional basis to establish a right, then the philosophical position that fetuses have rights can only be effected by way of an amendment to the Constitution. It's also worth considering, I think, that any attempt to actually define an unborn baby as human, and to respect even a limited set of rights, is an absolutely unique and unparalleled problem for a more basic reason than just precedent or religious/moral matters. There are no other legal questions I can think of in which two different entities, each with rights and each entitled to legal protection, happen to inhabit the same body. My hand has no legal standing to sue my ear. My face can't file a criminal complaint against my foot, if the foot happens to slip off the brake pedal and cause my face to get mashed against the steering wheel. In fact, even parts of me that are separated from my body (blood donations, or cells stored in a semen-bank, or tissues removed by surgery - which might have been viable if they hadn't been separated from the rest of me), aren't considered by law to have rights of their own, which might come into conflict with my rights as a whole human being. Well, all of that is interesting, but it begs the question. If you take that point of view you're saying, simply, that an unborn fetus is part of the mother, and nothing more, until the time of birth. The Supreme Court did not make that determination in Roe. It simply said it wasn't qualified nor authorized to make that decision. Neither can the states make the determination because they have no legal basis to claim a compelling interest. They could make a law in this case only if it didn't conflict with an established right; in this case, the mother's rights to life and to privacy. The decision then defaults to the mother because it is the mother's rights that potentially are in conflict. That's Roe in a nutshell. An unborn child, however, if recognized as human, would create some unique conflicts that could ONLY be resolved, I think, by the most subjective and arbitrary kinds of decisions. That's what makes serious jurists wary of overturning Roe. Even from those who are completely in favor of limiting or abolishing abortions, I've never heard any sensible answer about HOW an unborn child's rights could be expressed and protected, except by stripping the mother of a SUBSTANTIAL portion of her own rights. That's Roe. That's the default situation, because Roe determined there is no way to establish the unborn's rights, or lack thereof. If a parent neglects to feed or care for an infant or a toddler, that's normally considered a crime. But if a pregnant woman neglects to properly feed or care for herself, then would her unborn child be entitled to protection, just like the infant or toddler? Would we take the fetus away from the mother, and place it in a state-appoved womb, so that it could get the care and nutrition it needs? Would we prosecute the mother, or place her in a state institution and force-feed her? What if a pregnant mother lived in poverty, and didn't have enough food, and decided to feed her infant and her toddler instead of herself? Under many circumstances, such a woman might be considered heroic or noble. But if she's pregnant, and if she's feeding her "live" children at the expense of an unborn one, does she suddenly become a criminal? Obviously, I don't have answers to these questions; but I have a problem with a government that even CONSIDERS legislation it has no plans - and possibly no way at all - to administer or enforce. If a fetus has rights - ANY rights - then those must certainly include the right to expect the government to protect it, and to know HOW to protect it. If we don't require our lawmakers to know how a piece of legislation can be applied or enforced, then we might as well just outlaw death, as a way to protect our right to life. And we could prohibit earthquakes, as a way to protect property, and to avoid the terrible cost and tragedy of large-scale disasters. Those are interesting practical questions, but it's the establishment of rights themselves, as a philosophical matter, that has no basis in this case, says the Court. Until some uncommonly wise (and brave) legislator tells me EXACTLY what rights a fetus ought to have, and HOW those rights will be protected, I can't accept the idea that there can BE any legal conflict between the mother and the fetus. Abortion is just the most visible, most overt, and most easily grasped part of the question about whether a fetus is human. That's the only reason it's become the center and focus of an endless debate, rather than just one aspect of something more important and fundamental. If a fetus has any rights at all, then abortion is just ONE way to violate them. I consider it a measure of the cowardice of our elected leaders, and the brain-laziness of a very large segment of our population, that one small part of the question can become such a magnet for debate and acrimony (and even homicide, in some cases), while the core issue of what rights are, and who has them, and how they might REALLY be protected, is so seldom even mentioned. Well, I wouldn't get too hung up about that, myself. Our principles of rights are not a bunch of abstract ideas that we work out in minute detail before getting on with life. We work them out as we go along. That's the history of the Supreme Court. The debate will NEVER end, of course, because we're not even arguing about the right things. The right-to-life argument is a religious/philosophical one that, the Court has determined, loses the constitutional debate. But we have a way to resolve those things. It's to pass an amendment to the Constitution. If the idea behind a fetus's rights is compelling enough that a large majority of people favor it, the Constitution can be changed to accommodate them. But we make it hard to change the Constitution specifically to ensure than the sentiment for any changes in the status of rights is shared by a large majority of people, acting through their elected representatives. To say that the debate will never end implies that you feel the debate will forever be evenly divided. I wouldn't bet money on that. Ed Huntress |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
Excellent analysis! Big round of applause for Ed!
Jeff "Ed Huntress" wrote in message et... "Kirk Gordon" wrote in message s.com... Ed Huntress wrote: Most of what you've listed are cases of conflicting rights, Kirk. They've been resolved as cases that required a decision. The decision-making power is implicit in the necessity of resolving a conflict of rights, ranging from issues of eminent domain to the question of which races are "men," and whether "man" is used in the exclusive or inclusive sense, both of which appear in founding documents of the US. You've also tossed in a case or two of due process, in which rights are limited through due process of law. The trouble with the abortion issue is that there is no Constitutional basis for assigning rights to the unborn. Nothing. Not even history and common law. If you know of one, there are some people who would love to hear about it. I'll accept the idea of conflicting rights as a matter of semantics, I guess; but I can't think of how or why I'd have come into conflict with someone else's rights when I was 13 years old and needed a job; Children have always been subject to protections by the state, from exploitation and other abuses. It's embedded deep in common law. It's best to stick to adults if you want to reason your way through this. or if I'd wanted to smoke cigarettes before I was 18. You're still dealing with children. And issues of discrimination are only conflicts if you accept the idea that a consumer who walks into my place of business has a "right" to shop there. That's a question of how far civil liberties go. Notice, in contrast to Roe, there is no question that there are civil rights involved here, and that people have a right to equal treatment under law. You can argue, however, whether extending that to treatment in places of public accomodation (your place of business) is appropriate. So in that case you're dealing with a conflict of rights, both of them established under law. In Roe, there is no established right on one side of the issue. The Court also held that there is no constitutional basis on which one could be established. The word "rights" has too often become interchangeable with politically attractive privileges, which creates "conflicts" that shouldn't even exist. Which makes it especially important to keep your head and to follow the legal reasoning in order to make any sense of it at all. Most people haven't even read Roe. Most people don't have a clue about what the basis is of the law regarding abortion, therefore, and how rights are involved in it. Still, the basic question is how (or if, or why, or when) we define the particular life-forms that do and don't have rights. 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.) Whether the question is about a snail-darter in the Tennessee River, or an unborn fetus in the womb, it seems to me that our lawmakers have an obligation to establish definitions as a pre-condition for passing a law. Firstly, legislators have NO authority to establish definitions of rights, or to decide who has them. That's a constitutional issue, and constitutional issues are decided by the courts. Furthermore, there is no rights issue involved in the case of snail darters. g That's an administrative issue based upon legislation that applies due process of law to restrict the property owners. No rights conflicts are involved, only a due-process limitation of rights. Secondly, the point of Roe is that this is not a question of what rights are or who has them. The question is, what is a "who." And our courts have an obligation to test the definitions as carefully and thoroughly as they test any other aspect of any legislation. Again, the legislators have no authority to make such definitions in the first place. Rights are a constitutional issue, not a legislative issue. Legislators pass laws, not rights. As you say, there's no constitutional basis for assigning rights to the unborn. To me, that means we need to ESTABLISH some clear definitions about what rights are, and whom/what they apply to, BEFORE we attempt to pass laws of any kind. In a general sense, that wouldn't be practical, and it would violate a basic principle of the Constitution that's stated in the 9th and 10th Amendments. You can't anticipate every potential piece of legislation. That's why we have courts. Second, the courts decide these issues on the narrowest possible terms. That's because they can't anticipate future legislation -- back to point one. When they establish a principle, it's usually construed to deal only with the narrow range of cases represented by the case before them. That's an ancient and necessary principle of jurisprudence. There also is this complication. This statement from another case heard by the Supreme Court, written by Justice Harlan (Poe v. Ullman), spells out the mainstream understanding of the status of rights, and the implication of the 9th Amendment: "The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment." The alternative is a narrow construction that says the only rights are those spelled out in the Bill of Rights. That's judge Bork, for example, and the hard-line conservative point of view. Harlan's statement might be called the libertarian point of view, but it's actually the liberal point of view -- which has been the mainstream constitutional view for at least 50 of the past 70 years. It's been described as a right to be left alone, unless there is a compelling reason to restrict what you do. Figuring out what belongs on the "continuum," such as a right to privacy, is the business of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court. The broad view that the Constitution requires "freedom from all substantial artitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" requires endless interpretation of the Constitution. Thus, if you favor this view of individual liberty, you can't favor conservative jurisprudence. The two are diametrically opposed. Taken together, all of this means that you can't "define" rights without limiting them, and the Constitution is open-ended about individual rights. If you try to define them before the fact, you necessarily limit them to what you put on your list. You can't do that and at the same time maintain the underlying idea that liberty is the right to be left alone. As you've pointed out many times, the constitution is mostly concerned with limiting what the government can do, rather than "granting" rights, or assuming that rights don't exist until the law specifically addresses them. Even if viewed as a "conflict" between the rights of the unborn and the rights of pregnant women, I see no way that the law can properly attempt to respect the rights of an unborn entity until and unless specific, detailed, and court-tested definitions establish that entity to be human. The issue would be a conflict of rights if there was a basis for establishing the rights of the unborn. There is not. That's the crucial point of Roe. Note that I have said *potential* conflict of rights in all of my discussion about it here. The potential is never realized because there is no legal basis for an unborn's rights. It might be a good point to clarify that these are not my ideas. These are Justice Blackmun and Justice Stewart's ideas. Most constitutional scholars, including the other Justices, agree with them. That's why Roe hasn't been overturned. It would open up a real hornets' nest and grant the states a new principle to define rights if it were overturned. The toothpaste is out of the tube, in other words. Even judge Bork has said that, although he disagrees with the ruling in Roe, he would not vote to overturn it now. The ruling in Roe has given us an insight into rights that can be used by either side, if it's overturned, and the resulting principle would be a dangerous one. Those ideas which OFFER themselves as precedents, incidentally, and which claim to provide the needed definition, all seem to me to come from religious traditions, rather than legal history. This expands the problem of abortion related legislation to include questions about separation of church and state - which are themselves contentious and complex issues. This usually has the result of making the "abortion debate" more complex and more nasty, rather than providing any actual help or sanity. Sure. The argument is almost entirely a religious one, which becomes a philosophical one in a secular government. If there is no constitutional basis to establish a right, then the philosophical position that fetuses have rights can only be effected by way of an amendment to the Constitution. It's also worth considering, I think, that any attempt to actually define an unborn baby as human, and to respect even a limited set of rights, is an absolutely unique and unparalleled problem for a more basic reason than just precedent or religious/moral matters. There are no other legal questions I can think of in which two different entities, each with rights and each entitled to legal protection, happen to inhabit the same body. My hand has no legal standing to sue my ear. My face can't file a criminal complaint against my foot, if the foot happens to slip off the brake pedal and cause my face to get mashed against the steering wheel. In fact, even parts of me that are separated from my body (blood donations, or cells stored in a semen-bank, or tissues removed by surgery - which might have been viable if they hadn't been separated from the rest of me), aren't considered by law to have rights of their own, which might come into conflict with my rights as a whole human being. Well, all of that is interesting, but it begs the question. If you take that point of view you're saying, simply, that an unborn fetus is part of the mother, and nothing more, until the time of birth. The Supreme Court did not make that determination in Roe. It simply said it wasn't qualified nor authorized to make that decision. Neither can the states make the determination because they have no legal basis to claim a compelling interest. They could make a law in this case only if it didn't conflict with an established right; in this case, the mother's rights to life and to privacy. The decision then defaults to the mother because it is the mother's rights that potentially are in conflict. That's Roe in a nutshell. An unborn child, however, if recognized as human, would create some unique conflicts that could ONLY be resolved, I think, by the most subjective and arbitrary kinds of decisions. That's what makes serious jurists wary of overturning Roe. Even from those who are completely in favor of limiting or abolishing abortions, I've never heard any sensible answer about HOW an unborn child's rights could be expressed and protected, except by stripping the mother of a SUBSTANTIAL portion of her own rights. That's Roe. That's the default situation, because Roe determined there is no way to establish the unborn's rights, or lack thereof. If a parent neglects to feed or care for an infant or a toddler, that's normally considered a crime. But if a pregnant woman neglects to properly feed or care for herself, then would her unborn child be entitled to protection, just like the infant or toddler? Would we take the fetus away from the mother, and place it in a state-appoved womb, so that it could get the care and nutrition it needs? Would we prosecute the mother, or place her in a state institution and force-feed her? What if a pregnant mother lived in poverty, and didn't have enough food, and decided to feed her infant and her toddler instead of herself? Under many circumstances, such a woman might be considered heroic or noble. But if she's pregnant, and if she's feeding her "live" children at the expense of an unborn one, does she suddenly become a criminal? Obviously, I don't have answers to these questions; but I have a problem with a government that even CONSIDERS legislation it has no plans - and possibly no way at all - to administer or enforce. If a fetus has rights - ANY rights - then those must certainly include the right to expect the government to protect it, and to know HOW to protect it. If we don't require our lawmakers to know how a piece of legislation can be applied or enforced, then we might as well just outlaw death, as a way to protect our right to life. And we could prohibit earthquakes, as a way to protect property, and to avoid the terrible cost and tragedy of large-scale disasters. Those are interesting practical questions, but it's the establishment of rights themselves, as a philosophical matter, that has no basis in this case, says the Court. Until some uncommonly wise (and brave) legislator tells me EXACTLY what rights a fetus ought to have, and HOW those rights will be protected, I can't accept the idea that there can BE any legal conflict between the mother and the fetus. Abortion is just the most visible, most overt, and most easily grasped part of the question about whether a fetus is human. That's the only reason it's become the center and focus of an endless debate, rather than just one aspect of something more important and fundamental. If a fetus has any rights at all, then abortion is just ONE way to violate them. I consider it a measure of the cowardice of our elected leaders, and the brain-laziness of a very large segment of our population, that one small part of the question can become such a magnet for debate and acrimony (and even homicide, in some cases), while the core issue of what rights are, and who has them, and how they might REALLY be protected, is so seldom even mentioned. Well, I wouldn't get too hung up about that, myself. Our principles of rights are not a bunch of abstract ideas that we work out in minute detail before getting on with life. We work them out as we go along. That's the history of the Supreme Court. The debate will NEVER end, of course, because we're not even arguing about the right things. The right-to-life argument is a religious/philosophical one that, the Court has determined, loses the constitutional debate. But we have a way to resolve those things. It's to pass an amendment to the Constitution. If the idea behind a fetus's rights is compelling enough that a large majority of people favor it, the Constitution can be changed to accommodate them. But we make it hard to change the Constitution specifically to ensure than the sentiment for any changes in the status of rights is shared by a large majority of people, acting through their elected representatives. To say that the debate will never end implies that you feel the debate will forever be evenly divided. I wouldn't bet money on that. Ed Huntress |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message et...
As a conservative yourself, G.W., I'm surprised and disappointed to see that you apparently grant only those rights that are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't have to say that abortion, for some reason or any reason, is "right." What it has to say is that it's wrong; or, at the very least, it has to say explicitly that the government is granted authority to legislate about the subject in question. One way it could do that is to define when a fetus acquires the right to due process, but it makes no comment upon that at all. Thus, there is no such legislative authority granted in the Constitution. So a case like this reverts to a question of rights, potentially rights in conflict. The basis on which the case was decided, and the present law of the land, is that there is no basis for the government to decide the controversial question of when life begins. And so it defaults to the rights that *are* established, which includes the right to life of the mother and her privacy. This sounded good until I thought about it. Do you mean to say that all things which are against the law must be specifically spelled out in the constitution? Are incest or polygamy or child porn or a hundred other things rights? I don't believe that the constitution specifically says they are wrong but we still have laws against them. Maybe since they aren't specifically spelled out in the constitution we could legalize them under rights which *are* established like the right to life of the perpetrator or his privacy. If you have a legal argument that opposes this, rather than just an opinion about how things ought to be, it will be interesting to hear it. Right now I'm kinda short on legal opinions but I have no shortage of personal opinions. It just seems to me that basic logic says it's not right to kill an innocent human being. The same logic tells me that when you have two conflicting rights the greater one should take precedence. The right to be born should be more important than the lifestyle or the privacy of the parent(s). G.W. |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
Kirk Gordon wrote in message ws.com...
snip The debate will NEVER end, of course, because we're not even arguing about the right things. KG That was very good, KG, and I learned a lot from it. I can only offer another personal opinion, that right now the unborn have just about zero rights. In a country where our founders wrote that it is "self evident" that everyone has the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it seems to me that we completely overlook the life part and focus on the pursuit of happiness as far as the abortion question is concerned. Shouldn't a little attention be paid to life? |
Barren ground: (was Gunner's medical bills)
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:00:06 GMT, Friday wrote:
In article , Gunner wrote: On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:53:13 GMT, Friday wrote: While discussing killing the unborn baby.... My moral beliefs on the issue are quite clear to me, but I wouldn't impose them on anyone else. THAT would be unConstitutional. As well as MORALLY wrong. So you have no problem with Jim getting ****ed off at his minor daughter and putting a bullet through her skull simply because she was inconvenient? Or should I say..you wouldn't try to impose your will on him in trying to stop him because to do so, would not be moral? Gunner I belive shooting one's daughter (or anyone else) would be quite unconstitutional (taking away her Right to Life and all). And immoral (to my mind anyway - others might disagree; I don't know Jim's daughter). Of course I would stop him. Murder is illegal and unconstitutional. Admittedly, my first reaction would be bassed upon morailty. But that morality has been ingrained in my mind since I was old enough to learn. Had murder always been legal since I was born, who knows, maybe I would have been indocrinated to believe murder is moral. But I'll leave that for the philosophers. If, OTOH, we were debating whether or not murder should be decrimnalized, then my moral beliefs wouldn't (shouldn't anyway) have any import to the matter. The Consistution, however (in this case), would be very easy to interpret. You can't take away another citizen's Right to Life. Plain and simple. Or did I miss your point? We were discussing the killing of the unborn baby. Which is legal to do. So if its legal to kill his daughter before she pops out the chute..and you would not stop him from killing her while still in the womb, why would you stop him one minute later after she has popped out? Friday Gunner "The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of their insanity is that they actually believe this." -- someone in misc.survivalism |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
Ed Huntress wrote:
I'll accept the idea of conflicting rights as a matter of semantics, I guess; but I can't think of how or why I'd have come into conflict with someone else's rights when I was 13 years old and needed a job; Children have always been subject to protections by the state, from exploitation and other abuses. It's embedded deep in common law. It's best to stick to adults if you want to reason your way through this. or if I'd wanted to smoke cigarettes before I was 18. You're still dealing with children. These were minor points and examples, so I don't plan to dwell on them; but it sounds like you're saying (or interpreting the law to say) that my needs or desires came into conflict with the plans and policies of the people who were responsible for protecting me. That's not at all the same as a conflict between my rights and those of someone else. And dealing with children is sorta necessary if we're to talk sensibly about abortion issues. If a fetus is ever legally defined as human, it will certainly be a minor human - a child or "less" - and not a responsible adult. Other legal questions which deal logically and successfully (or not) with the specific needs of minors might give some valuable clues to the proper approach (if there is one) to the rights, needs, or general legal standing, of the unborn. And issues of discrimination are only conflicts if you accept the idea that a consumer who walks into my place of business has a "right" to shop there. That's a question of how far civil liberties go. Notice, in contrast to Roe, there is no question that there are civil rights involved here, and that people have a right to equal treatment under law. You can argue, however, whether extending that to treatment in places of public accomodation (your place of business) is appropriate. I'm arguing that the definition of "civil liberties" as "rights" for consumers is a de facto abrogation of the rights of businesspeople. That's not just a conflict. It's an example of laws which have effectively defined a class of people to whom certain rights don't apply. You point out that the constitution and the legislative process aren't supposed to define rights. And Harlan's "right to be left alone" is exactly right in my mind. But our laws DO establish definitions, whether they should or not. They also, routinely, establish "rights" which are little more than codified social conventions. In Roe, there is no established right on one side of the issue. The Court also held that there is no constitutional basis on which one could be established. Exactly. The constitution wasn't originally construed to include negroes as human, or women as fully human. It took constitutional ammendments (13, 15, and 19) to expand the definition. But the civil rights act of 1964, and all the derivative legislation that's expanded civil "rights" to include matters of gender, age, physical disabilities, etc., were just laws - passed by congress, signed by presidents, and upheld repeatedly by the courts. And current legal battles of a similar type are being fought over gay "rights", among other things. And there will surely be other such battles in the future. Aren't those examples of "rights" being extablished by legislation, and NOT by the constitution? And haven't the courts been supportive? 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.) Sure. The argument is almost entirely a religious one, which becomes a philosophical one in a secular government. If there is no constitutional basis to establish a right, then the philosophical position that fetuses have rights can only be effected by way of an amendment to the Constitution. It's also worth considering, I think, that any attempt to actually define an unborn baby as human, and to respect even a limited set of rights, is an absolutely unique and unparalleled problem for a more basic reason than just precedent or religious/moral matters. There are no other legal questions I can think of in which two different entities, each with rights and each entitled to legal protection, happen to inhabit the same body. My hand has no legal standing to sue my ear. My face can't file a criminal complaint against my foot, if the foot happens to slip off the brake pedal and cause my face to get mashed against the steering wheel. In fact, even parts of me that are separated from my body (blood donations, or cells stored in a semen-bank, or tissues removed by surgery - which might have been viable if they hadn't been separated from the rest of me), aren't considered by law to have rights of their own, which might come into conflict with my rights as a whole human being. Well, all of that is interesting, but it begs the question. If you take that point of view you're saying, simply, that an unborn fetus is part of the mother, and nothing more, until the time of birth. I can imagine two potential definitions that might be the basis for reasonable decisions about when/if a fetus could be recognized as human. The first would be that a fetus IS nothing more than part of its mother until the time of birth, or at least until the time that it COULD be born alive and viable, and could be expected to survive without its mother. If a competent medical doctor can say with a high degree of confidence that an unborn child, at any point in it's development, remains a part of its mother only by choice, convenience, or convention, and that it WOULD be a viable human child if delivered (as by C-section, maybe), then the law might treat it as human, regarless of where it lived. Prior to becoming viable (or potentially viable) on its own, the fetus would be considered indistinct from its mother. The second definition is one suggested by Carl Sagan in "The Dragons of Eden." During the early stages of gestation - approximately the first twelve weeks - a human fetus is in many fundamental ways more like a fish or an amphibian than a human being. Sagan suggests that the fetus doesn't become human, or even something that biologically resembles a human being, until it develops the particular anatomical feature which distinguishes humans from other animals at ALL stages of its life. That feature is the neocortex. In Sagan's view, the beginnings of neocortical activity in the developing brain (which can be detected by EEG technology) marks the moment at which a fetus first becomes more like a human being than like a fish or a frog. I find it interesting, if incidental, that this idea coincides with our current thinking about abortion being "preferable" during the first trimester of pregnancy, but problematic later on. Obviously, neither of these ideas is all that simple or straightforward; but there needs to be SOME logical standard on which debate and decisions are grounded. It seems to me that we're in agreement about what Roe v.Wade is, Ed, and about why. But I don't share your optimism about our goverernment being truly and consistently guided by the principles of the constitution. And a debate that's so deeply intertwined with issues of faith, personal sensitivities, and political posturing, is one that is NEVER likely to be handled logically, or with anything other than the most selective and subjective references to constitutional precedents. Roe was a remarkable exception to that, which is part of why I find it so important and powerful. But exceptions aren't enough, and I really do believe that this will go on forever. And no, I don't think it really matters whether people are always evenly divided. The debate was a loud and nasty one when states DID have laws limiting or prohibiting abortion. And it's been loud and nasty SINCE 1973. And it'll continue to be loud and nasty if/when the pendulum swings the other way. Cheers! KG |
OT- Vast Left Beginners Guide to Fibbing
Jeff McCann wrote:
Excellent analysis! Big round of applause for Ed! nodding Yup. Ed's got a pretty good head on him. That's why I find it so interesting, and so much fun, to wrestle with him when I can. KG |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter