In article ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate. So one is clearly entitled to
make individual decisions in the matter of not procreating. There is no
reason to believe that one is equally entitled the other way.

J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...



"Forcible government prevention of procreation"? What, the FBI was
sending agents to people's homes to pull copulating couples apart?

No, the government was castrating, hysterectomizing, vasectomizing, or
tubally ligating them.


Holy **** - I want some of those drugs you're on...


Do you seriously think there is no right to decide whether or not to
procreate?

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that one has a right to
decide not to procreate under most circumstances, but it has not
consistently ruled that one has a right to procreate.


It's a good thing you are not a judge...



Do you seriously think a law controlling how many children a
couple can have would pass constitutional muster?

If it applied equally to everyone then based on the cases you cited,
yes, it very likely would.

Oye...

--

-Mike-

On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

On 10/19/2011 9:17 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/17/2011 7:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/17/2011 10:30 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 03:50:08 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

You have some cases to cite?

Here's a very few, just to get you started. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316
U.S. 535 (1942) Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Eisenstadt
v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431
U.S. 678 (1977)

I looked those up. They all were primarily about the right to
contraception.

From Eisenstadt, at pg. 453:

"If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the
individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government
intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the
decision whether to bear or beget a child."

From Carey, at pg. 687:

"The teaching of Griswold is that the Constitution protects individual
decisions in matters of childbearing from unjustified intrusion by the
state."

Neither of those is a ruling by the court, those are statements made in
explaining their reasoning.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

When you get me appointed to the Supreme Court then my opinion in the
matter will have some bearing on the law. Until then it is irrelevant.
The courts have not denied the government the power to prevent an
individual from procreating, but the courts have required the government
to allow individuals to obtain the means to prevent procreation.

You plainly do not understand constitutional law regarding individual
rights vs. government powers.

On 10/19/2011 12:52 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

I believe that was when the government was introducing a birth control
under the surface of the skin. I do not recall the circumstances but
IIRC it was for incarcerated women.

On 10/19/2011 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/19/2011 12:52 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual
decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

I believe that was when the government was introducing a birth control
under the surface of the skin. I do not recall the circumstances but
IIRC it was for incarcerated women.

1. Is there any evidence of this, or are you just repeating gossip?
2. If it happened, it would be completely irrelevant to the proposition
that people have a right to make decisions about procreation. At most,
it would show that someone in some prison system violated someone's
constitutional right.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:52:05 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

See:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0183.htm
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

On 10/19/2011 4:09 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/19/2011 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/19/2011 12:52 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual
decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents
could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

I believe that was when the government was introducing a birth control
under the surface of the skin. I do not recall the circumstances but
IIRC it was for incarcerated women.

1. Is there any evidence of this, or are you just repeating gossip?

It was on the national news some years back. Google it.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 10/19/2011 4:09 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/19/2011 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/19/2011 12:52 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual
decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents
could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual
decisions in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to
not procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances
decide for individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

I believe that was when the government was introducing a birth
control under the surface of the skin. I do not recall the
circumstances but IIRC it was for incarcerated women.

1. Is there any evidence of this, or are you just repeating gossip?

It was on the national news some years back. Google it.

Depo provira or something like that sticks of plastic that leaked
something like the pill.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon wrote:


I believe that was when the government was introducing a birth control
under the surface of the skin. I do not recall the circumstances but
IIRC it was for incarcerated women.

Sorry Leon but I have to call on that. I think I also recall some
conversation about this concept, but for one, I'm not sure it ever went
anywhere, and for another - it's a far cry from the government imposing that
control over the general population.

--

-Mike-

On 10/19/2011 6:14 PM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 10/19/2011 4:09 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/19/2011 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/19/2011 12:52 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual
decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents
could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual
decisions in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to
not procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances
decide for individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

I believe that was when the government was introducing a birth
control under the surface of the skin. I do not recall the
circumstances but IIRC it was for incarcerated women.

1. Is there any evidence of this, or are you just repeating gossip?

It was on the national news some years back. Google it.

Depo provira or something like that sticks of plastic that leaked
something like the pill.


Sounds right Han, IIRC it was good for a longer period of time than
conventional methods.

On 10/19/2011 6:24 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


I believe that was when the government was introducing a birth control
under the surface of the skin. I do not recall the circumstances but
IIRC it was for incarcerated women.

Sorry Leon but I have to call on that. I think I also recall some
conversation about this concept, but for one, I'm not sure it ever went
anywhere, and for another - it's a far cry from the government imposing that
control over the general population.


That all could be true but it was in the public eye some years back.

Holy Smokes! No "Bull****!"????

Somebody is getting house trained. Real explanations and everything.


---------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Sorry Leon but I have to call on that. I think I also recall some
conversation about this concept, but for one, I'm not sure it ever went
anywhere, and for another - it's a far cry from the government imposing
that
control over the general population.

--

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:59:11 -0400, Nova wrote:

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

See:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0183.htm

And *that* ought to settle *that*!

(but it won't)

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Oct 19, 5:59*pm, Nova wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:52:05 -0600, Just Wondering









wrote:
On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

See:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0183.htm
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

I find your links and input very helpful, invariably.

Hey Asshole - **** Off!



m II wrote:
Holy Smokes! No "Bull****!"????

Somebody is getting house trained. Real explanations and everything.


---------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Sorry Leon but I have to call on that. I think I also recall some
conversation about this concept, but for one, I'm not sure it ever
went anywhere, and for another - it's a far cry from the government
imposing that
control over the general population.

On 10/19/2011 3:59 PM, Nova wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:52:05 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

See:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0183.htm

That deals with castration for (obviously male) convicted sex offenders.
It does not remotely suggest that government is generally empowered to
regulate a person's right to make decisions regarding procreation.
Government can in proper circumstances limit a person's free speech, but
free speech is nevertheless a fundamental right. Same with the right to
assemble, to own property, etc. In the criminal law context, people
undoubtedly have a right to life and a right to liberty, but the
government can in a proper case deprive a convicted felon of liberty and
even life.
In legal terms, if a person has a fundamental right, government can
infringe on that right if it can show a compelling interest, and that
the means it chooses are narrowly tailored to protect that interest.
Therefore, merely showing that government can restrict a right in narrow
circumstances does not disprove the right exists.

I rephrase my question: Do you seriously think that there is no
fundamental right to make decisions regarding procreation?

On 10/19/2011 5:45 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:59:11 -0400, Nova wrote:

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

See:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0183.htm

And *that* ought to settle *that*!

(but it won't)

Apparently that criminal penalty (castration of convicted sex offenders
as a criminal penalty) has been imposed so seldom that its
constitutionality has never been tested in the Supreme Court. Aside from
its obvious infringement on a person's right to procreate, it may well
be "cruel and unusual punishment" which the Constitution specifically
prohibits. And even if it was to be upheld, that does not show there is
no general right to make personal decisions about procreation, any more
than showing that a convicted felon can be imprisoned would show there
is no general right to liberty.

On 10/19/2011 5:14 PM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 10/19/2011 4:09 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/19/2011 2:57 PM, Leon wrote:
On 10/19/2011 12:52 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual
decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents
could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual
decisions in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to
not procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances
decide for individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

I believe that was when the government was introducing a birth
control under the surface of the skin. I do not recall the
circumstances but IIRC it was for incarcerated women.

1. Is there any evidence of this, or are you just repeating gossip?

It was on the national news some years back. Google it.

Depo provira or something like that sticks of plastic that leaked
something like the pill.

I'm the one saying there is a right to make decisions about whether to
procreate. I have challenged those who contend no such right exists for
examples to support their position. It's their job, not mine, to prove
their point.

Just Wondering wrote in news:4e9f69bb$0$17294$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

I'm the one saying there is a right to make decisions about whether to
procreate. I have challenged those who contend no such right exists for
examples to support their position. It's their job, not mine, to prove
their point.

If DepoProvera was ever used in coercive situations, that was long ago and
very limited, AFAICT. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depo-Provera.

It is still my OPINION that people should be able to care for their
offspring. Obviously there is no direct mention of any right to or
prohibition of procreation anywhere in the Constitution or any related
documents. If that is interpreted to mean that I deny the right to
procreation to anyone, than that is a problem with the interpreter.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
says...

On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

The example was in the list of cases you cited, where the court ruled
that the only Constitutional objection to a forced sterilization law was
that it exempted white collar criminals.

In article ,
says...

On 10/19/2011 5:45 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:59:11 -0400, Nova wrote:

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

See:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0183.htm

And *that* ought to settle *that*!

(but it won't)

Apparently that criminal penalty (castration of convicted sex offenders
as a criminal penalty) has been imposed so seldom that its
constitutionality has never been tested in the Supreme Court. Aside from
its obvious infringement on a person's right to procreate, it may well
be "cruel and unusual punishment" which the Constitution specifically
prohibits. And even if it was to be upheld, that does not show there is
no general right to make personal decisions about procreation, any more
than showing that a convicted felon can be imprisoned would show there
is no general right to liberty.

More than 60,000 people have been forcibly sterilized in the US. How
many does it take before the constitutionality of it is tested in the
Supreme Court to your satisfaction?

In article ,
says...

On 10/19/2011 3:59 PM, Nova wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:52:05 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

See:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0183.htm

That deals with castration for (obviously male) convicted sex offenders.
It does not remotely suggest that government is generally empowered to
regulate a person's right to make decisions regarding procreation.
Government can in proper circumstances limit a person's free speech, but
free speech is nevertheless a fundamental right. Same with the right to
assemble, to own property, etc. In the criminal law context, people
undoubtedly have a right to life and a right to liberty, but the
government can in a proper case deprive a convicted felon of liberty and
even life.
In legal terms, if a person has a fundamental right, government can
infringe on that right if it can show a compelling interest, and that
the means it chooses are narrowly tailored to protect that interest.
Therefore, merely showing that government can restrict a right in narrow
circumstances does not disprove the right exists.

I rephrase my question: Do you seriously think that there is no
fundamental right to make decisions regarding procreation?

Look, the government sterilized people and has done over 60,000 of them
since 1900. If you think the government has no power to do this then
find the ruling that put an end to it.

In article ,
says...

On 10/19/2011 9:17 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/17/2011 7:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/17/2011 10:30 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 03:50:08 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

You have some cases to cite?

Here's a very few, just to get you started. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316
U.S. 535 (1942) Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Eisenstadt
v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431
U.S. 678 (1977)

I looked those up. They all were primarily about the right to
contraception.

From Eisenstadt, at pg. 453:

"If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the
individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government
intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the
decision whether to bear or beget a child."

From Carey, at pg. 687:

"The teaching of Griswold is that the Constitution protects individual
decisions in matters of childbearing from unjustified intrusion by the
state."

Neither of those is a ruling by the court, those are statements made in
explaining their reasoning.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

When you get me appointed to the Supreme Court then my opinion in the
matter will have some bearing on the law. Until then it is irrelevant.
The courts have not denied the government the power to prevent an
individual from procreating, but the courts have required the government
to allow individuals to obtain the means to prevent procreation.

You plainly do not understand constitutional law regarding individual
rights vs. government powers.

You plainly do not understand the rulings that you claim support your
argument. And you're getting boring.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:15:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
Hey Asshole - **** Off!

m II wrote:
Holy Smokes! No "Bull****!"????

You've just got to wonder Mike, why people like him aspire to be
whipping boys. He's an asshole and all, but he seems to enjoy being
one too.

On 10/19/2011 7:38 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/19/2011 5:45 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:59:11 -0400, Nova wrote:

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

See:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0183.htm

And *that* ought to settle *that*!

(but it won't)

Apparently that criminal penalty (castration of convicted sex offenders
as a criminal penalty) has been imposed so seldom that its
constitutionality has never been tested in the Supreme Court. Aside from
its obvious infringement on a person's right to procreate, it may well
be "cruel and unusual punishment" which the Constitution specifically
prohibits. And even if it was to be upheld, that does not show there is
no general right to make personal decisions about procreation, any more
than showing that a convicted felon can be imprisoned would show there
is no general right to liberty.

More than 60,000 people have been forcibly sterilized in the US. How
many does it take before the constitutionality of it is tested in the
Supreme Court to your satisfaction?


The subject here is whether procreation is a fundamental right.
Even Skinner v. Oklahoma recognized that it is: "We are dealing here
with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man.
Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and
survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have
subtle, farreaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands
it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to
wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the
law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his
irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty."


Do you need more?

San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973):
"Skinner applied the standard of close scrutiny to a state law
permitting forced sterilization of ‘habitual criminals.’ Implicit in the
Court's opinion is the recognition that the right of procreation is
among the rights of personal privacy protected under the Constitution."


Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 762 (1997) (Souter, concurring):
"After Meyer and Pierce, two further opinions took the major steps that
lead to the modern law. The first was not even in a due process case but
one about equal protection, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316
U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942), where the Court
emphasized the “fundamental” nature of individual choice about
procreation and so foreshadowed not only the later prominence of
procreation as a subject of liberty protection, but the corresponding
standard of “strict scrutiny,” in this Court's Fourteenth Amendment law.
See id., at 541, 62 S.Ct., at 1113. Skinner, that is, added decisions
regarding procreation to the list of liberties recognized in Meyer and
Pierce and loosely suggested, as a gloss on their standard of
arbitrariness, a judicial obligation to scrutinize any impingement on
such an important interest with heightened care."


Carey v. Population Services, Intern., 431 U.S. 678, 687 (1977) (a
longer quote than I gave before):
"Appellants argue that this Court has not accorded a “right of access to
contraceptives” the status of a fundamental aspect of personal liberty.
They emphasize that Griswold v. Connecticut, struck down a state
prohibition of the use of contraceptives, and so had no occasion to
discuss laws “regulating their manufacture or sale.” 381 U.S., at 485,
85 S.Ct., at 1682. Eisenstadt v. Baird, was decided under the Equal
Protection Clause, holding that “whatever the rights of the individual
to access to contraceptivesmay *687 be, the rights must be the same for
the unmarried and the married alike.” 405 U.S., at 453, 92 S.Ct., at
1038. Thus appellants argue that neither case should be treated as
reflecting upon the State's power to limit or prohibit distribution of
contraceptives to any persons, married or unmarried. But see id., at
463-464, 92 S.Ct., at 1043-1044 (White, J., concurring in result).
The fatal fallacy in this argument is that it overlooks the underlying
premise of those decisions that the Constitution protects “the right of
the individual . . . to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion
into . . . the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Id., at 453,
92 S.Ct., at 1038. Griswold did state that by “forbidding the use of
contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale,” the
Connecticut statute there had “a maximum destructive impact” on privacy
rights. 381 U.S., at 485, 85 S.Ct., at 1682. This intrusion into “the
sacred precincts of marital bedrooms” made that statute particularly
“repulsive.” Id., at 485-486, 85 S.Ct., at 1682. But subsequent
decisions have made clear that the constitutional protection of
individual autonomy in matters of childbearing is not dependent on that
element. Eisenstadt v. Baird, holding that the protection is not limited
to married couples, characterized the protected right as the “decision
whether to bear or beget a child.” 405 U.S., at 453, 92 S.Ct., at 1038
(emphasis added). Similarly, Roe v. Wade, held that the Constitution
protects “a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”
410 U.S., at 153, 93 S.Ct., at 727 (emphasis added). See also Whalen v.
Roe, supra, 429 U.S., at 599-600, 97 S.Ct., at 876-877, and n. 26. These
decisions put Griswold in proper perspective. Griswold may no longer be
read as holding only that a State may not prohibit a married couple's
use of contraceptives. Read in light of its progeny, the teaching of
Griswold is that the Constitution protects individual decisions in
matters of childbearing from unjustified intrusion by the State.
Restrictions on the distribution of contraceptives clearly burden the
freedom to make such decisions. A total prohibition against sale of
contraceptives, for example, would intrude *688 upon individual
decisions in matters of procreation and contraception as harshly as a
direct ban on their use."


Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-640 (1974):
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by
the Due Process Clause *640 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S.
1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 1823, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010; Griswold v. Connecticut,
381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510; Pierce v. Society of
Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070; Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042. See also Prince v.
Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645; Skinner v.
Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655. As we noted in
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, 31 L.Ed.2d
349, there is a right ‘to be free from unwarranted governmental
intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the
decision whether to bear or beget a child.’
By acting to penalize the pregnant teacher for deciding to bear a child,
overly restrictive maternity leave regulations can constitute a heavy
burden on the exercise of these protected freedoms. Because public
school maternity leave rules directly affect ‘one of the basic civil
rights of man,’ Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, 316 U.S., at 541, 62 S.Ct.,
at 1113, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires
that such rules must not needlessly, arbitrarily, or capriciously
impinge upon this vital area of a teacher's constitutional liberty.'"


U.S. v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 142 (1973):
"The Constitution extends special safeguards to the privacy of the home,
just as it protects other special privacy rights such as those of
marriage, procreation, motherhood, child rearing, and education. See
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453-454, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 1038, 31
L.Ed.2d 349 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817,
1823, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, supra, 381 U.S.,
at 486, 85 S.Ct., at 1682; Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166,
64 S.Ct. 438, 442, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S.
535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); Pierce v. Society
of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 573, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925)."

On 10/19/2011 7:40 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/19/2011 3:59 PM, Nova wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:52:05 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

See:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0183.htm

That deals with castration for (obviously male) convicted sex offenders.
It does not remotely suggest that government is generally empowered to
regulate a person's right to make decisions regarding procreation.
Government can in proper circumstances limit a person's free speech, but
free speech is nevertheless a fundamental right. Same with the right to
assemble, to own property, etc. In the criminal law context, people
undoubtedly have a right to life and a right to liberty, but the
government can in a proper case deprive a convicted felon of liberty and
even life.
In legal terms, if a person has a fundamental right, government can
infringe on that right if it can show a compelling interest, and that
the means it chooses are narrowly tailored to protect that interest.
Therefore, merely showing that government can restrict a right in narrow
circumstances does not disprove the right exists.

I rephrase my question: Do you seriously think that there is no
fundamental right to make decisions regarding procreation?

Look, the government sterilized people and has done over 60,000 of them
since 1900. If you think the government has no power to do this then
find the ruling that put an end to it.

How long ago was the last government-compelled sterilization? 1981?
The government has also imprisoned MILLIONS of people, i.e., deprived
them of their liberty, and has executed thousands, i.e., deprived them
of their lives. It still remains that people have a right to life and a
right to liberty. Showing instances where government has deprived
people of a right does not prove the right does not exist. If it is a
fundamental right, government can interfere with it IF it can satisfy
the "compelling interest" test.

Suppose you had a healthy 25 year old daughter with two children and no
criminal history, Do you seriously think that if the government chose
to forcibly sterilize her to prevent her from conceiving a third child,
that it would not violate her constitutional rights?

On 10/19/2011 7:15 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Hey Asshole - **** Off!



m II wrote:
Holy Smokes! No "Bull****!"????

Somebody is getting house trained. Real explanations and everything.


---------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Sorry Leon but I have to call on that. I think I also recall some
conversation about this concept, but for one, I'm not sure it ever
went anywhere, and for another - it's a far cry from the government
imposing that
control over the general population.



Direct Hit!

Battle ship sunk

On 10/19/2011 7:15 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/19/2011 3:59 PM, Nova wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:52:05 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual
decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents
could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

See:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0183.htm

That deals with castration for (obviously male) convicted sex offenders.
It does not remotely suggest that government is generally empowered to
regulate a person's right to make decisions regarding procreation.
Government can in proper circumstances limit a person's free speech, but
free speech is nevertheless a fundamental right. Same with the right to
assemble, to own property, etc. In the criminal law context, people
undoubtedly have a right to life and a right to liberty, but the
government can in a proper case deprive a convicted felon of liberty and
even life.
In legal terms, if a person has a fundamental right, government can
infringe on that right if it can show a compelling interest, and that
the means it chooses are narrowly tailored to protect that interest.
Therefore, merely showing that government can restrict a right in narrow
circumstances does not disprove the right exists.

I rephrase my question: Do you seriously think that there is no
fundamental right to make decisions regarding procreation?


Your above response is what is know as "back peddling". You got the
answer to your question, did not like the answer and therefore changed
the question. Nice!

Mikey likes it!


--------------
"Leon" wrote in message
news Direct Hit!

Battle ship sunk

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:22:13 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

It's their job, not mine, to prove
their point.

And it's your job to listen when they do - a job from which you have
apparently resigned :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:20:15 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

pparently that criminal penalty (castration of convicted sex offenders
as a criminal penalty) has been imposed so seldom that its
constitutionality has never been tested in the Supreme Court. Aside from
its obvious infringement on a person's right to procreate, ...

There's a Latin phrase for "assuming that which is in dispute" that I
can't quite remember, but you're guilty of it.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 10/20/2011 5:38 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/19/2011 7:15 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

I rephrase my question: Do you seriously think that there is no
fundamental right to make decisions regarding procreation?

Your above response is what is know as "back peddling". You got the
answer to your question ...

I repeat my last question:
Do you seriously think that there is no fundamental right to make
decisions regarding procreation?

On 10/20/2011 1:59 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 10/20/2011 5:38 AM, Leon wrote:
On 10/19/2011 7:15 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

I rephrase my question: Do you seriously think that there is no
fundamental right to make decisions regarding procreation?

Your above response is what is know as "back peddling". You got the
answer to your question ...

I repeat my last question:
Do you seriously think that there is no fundamental right to make
decisions regarding procreation?


Refer to Nova's response.

Leon wrote:
Again, turning off the ignition does not lock up the steering wheel.
Turning the ignition switch to the position so that you can remove
the key locks the steering wheel.
-----------------------------------
Had a chance to do a little test on my Tonka Toy.

Steering wheel does not lock up until key is removed from lock.

Learned something, thank you.

Since I drive a stick shift, thus am familiar with stick operation by
feel rather than sight.

In the event of an engine run away would immediately shift to neutral
and get the vehicle stopped.

When stopped, would then look for ignition switch to stop engine.

I know, letting the engine rev up at high RPM with no load may result
in a thrown rod, but so be it.

Lew

On Oct 21, 2:37*am, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

I know, letting the engine rev up at high RPM with no load may result
in a thrown rod, but so be it.

Lew

Many(injected) cars these days has rev limiters in the computer.

On 10/21/2011 1:37 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Leon wrote:
Again, turning off the ignition does not lock up the steering wheel.
Turning the ignition switch to the position so that you can remove
the key locks the steering wheel.
-----------------------------------
Had a chance to do a little test on my Tonka Toy.

Steering wheel does not lock up until key is removed from lock.

Better yet!


Learned something, thank you.

Since I drive a stick shift, thus am familiar with stick operation by
feel rather than sight.

In the event of an engine run away would immediately shift to neutral
and get the vehicle stopped.

When stopped, would then look for ignition switch to stop engine.

I know, letting the engine rev up at high RPM with no load may result
in a thrown rod, but so be it.

Lew




You would probably react quickly to turn off the ignition after you
heard the engine rev and that typically will not spell disaster unless
you let the engine rev more than necessary.