Abortion

[Undead Cheese]

So yeah, Tipsy and Undead Cheese should answer my posts sometime...In the mean time:

In 2000 there were less than 130,000 adoptions. The CDC estimates there were about 1 million abortions that year. That's a lot of kids not getting adopted. But I'm sure you have a solution for that right?

You might rather be dead than living in an orphanage, but that isn't true for everyone. Seriously, I don't see how killing them makes it any better.

The problem with being against abortion is that, no matter what, in the long run. The kid loses out.

How does the kid not lose out by being murdered?

You can present them with the most highest of legal documents and they still will say that their interpretation is correct. Even if it is not even mentioned in the source they claimed.

I think you're confusing Tipsy and I for yourself.

I chose this time not too respond too the rest of the post because I have found it hopeless to argue with you on legal grounds. You accept nothing I put fourth as evidence in that regard so I will move on too the social issues.

There's a reason for that, though. More than one, actually:
1. You argue against points we never made.
2. When you argue against points we do make, you ignore the parts of your sources that contradict you.
3. When we present you with facts that contradict your claims entirely, you figure the best thing to do is ignore them.

Tipsy, as can be clearly seen the debate against lizardbreath is pointless. Mere facts hold no sway in his alternate reality. I think it would be best to concentrate on others, such as Celestial.

 

[Tipsy]

I am still amazed by your lack of reading:

- So your saying its wrong for us to take away lifes. But it is right for us to go to war and kill thousands? What am I missing in this logic?

Notice my "Do I personally agree with Bush's stance on the war on terror, not at all, but he does have his own reasoning behind it that has been distorted." Notice how I gave Bush's reasoning for you, if you want to see what I think should be done, go to the United Nations thread.

-The people we go too war with and kill both soldiers and civilians get niether of these. But yet you say everybody is entitled to these "inaliable rights" what right do we have to go in and kill thousands of people then they do?

Maybe we should not go to war, and go back to semi-isolationist practices (as I have talked about in the United Nations thread). Maybe if you bothered reading you would see this. My point is, voting Bush for president can save lives by stopping abortion (hopefully), but voting Kerry would end up with nearly the same thing of voting Bush in Iraq. We went in Iraq, that cannot be changed, whether you vote Kerry or not, we will still be in there.

Here is a link to the United Nations thread:
http://www.battleforums.com/showthread.php?t=88912

I chose this time not too respond too the rest of the post because I have found it hopeless to argue with you on legal grounds. You accept nothing I put fourth as evidence

You lack any evidence is why.

in that regard so I will move on too the social issues.

All social issues can be easily responded to by: "How can any social issue justify the taking away of the inalienable right to life, especially without the guarenteed without due process?"

1. You argue against points we never made.
2. When you argue against points we do make, you ignore the parts of your sources that contradict you.
3. When we present you with facts that contradict your claims entirely, you figure the best thing to do is ignore them.

Don't forget the not reading part, he seems to not be able to read anything even when it isn't on the topic (my view on the war on terror for example).

 

[Lizardbreath]

Do you really want me to go back and repost everything against your arguments (Basically everything you must have missed and not read)? I can and will do it. And prove once and for all that I have always been right.

Edit: BTW you always seem to think I don't read what u put in. Yes I quote it and write arguments against it because I must be psychic and no how to respond.

Edit#2: Let's use your logic then. You say you don't support the war on terrorism right? And kerry supports abortion? So people who vote for kerry are voting for 1.2 murders(If you want I will quote you on this)? So that means when you voted for bush that you are voting for not only millions of soldiers/civilians killed but you are also voting too increase our defecit. GJ. You...yet again...just gg'ed yourself.

 

[Homem mAIOR]

how many adopted children/orphans do you know? I only know like 3 or 4 and thats because the people that adopted them are brilliant wonderful humanitarians.

the best way to solve the situation is to not have premarital sex, period.

to Homem mAIOR(whats your name, i dont get it...:/):

i know a kid that is about 13, he has a disease where his body lacks the ability to grow larger than a baby that cannot walk. Yet, he is one of the brightest kids i know, he's even influential in some ways where a regular person wouldnt be. His parents were told that they should abort and not deal with this disease, they didnt believe in it and they had the child anyways.

Do you think that they should have aborted the child and just not try? or do you think he deserved a chance at living? Thats one of mans "god given" rights, to live, and the parents were given the choice to allow the child to either live or die, which is taking away its right to live. I dont feel that we are allowed to make that descision, much like the woman in florida who's feeding tube might be removed, she shouldnt die because you dont want to provide for her anymore, she should die when she dies. Why do you think that convicted killers are sentanced to life in prison or better yet, the death penalty? because they have infringed on the rights of others and must be punished. Now it might seem like a contradiction to kill someone because they took the life of someone, but similary saying that you dont support terrorism yet pay the families of those that spent their lives in the sake of terrorism seems kind of a contradiction does it not?

Also, lets go further with bush taking saddam out of office. Are you aware of the lebonon(sp?) and syrian conflict ATM?

Well first, I'm not telling to abort just because a child is handicaped somehow, second I'm only interested in the youths correct social and mental developments, thirdly, these convicted killers, true they harmed and damaged other peoples rights but, nevertheless, you are taking a life and, you're just becoming like them; descending to their level...
Yes I'm aware of those and are you aware of the swamp people (a ethnic minority who lived in south Iraqui) who was tottaly wipped out by Saddam with the aid of US Millitary??
And what about Al-quaeda asking for the islamic people of iraque to rebel themselves cause Saddam was a enemy of the religion (due to the fact that he allowed catholics to live in Iraque and did NOT sponsored any terrorist group eho attended against the west)?? Oh and like Bin Laden, you were the ones who threw him there!
Oh and what about Saudi Arabia (Saudi Dudi) who as a regime like the Tallibans in Afganistan where women are beat up in public, public stonings, yada yada yada???
And what about in Chile?? Where USA helped the dictator General Pinochet to seize power by killing the democraticly elected president??? And what about, USA Colt factories sell of weapons to the Collombian drug Cartels who use them to kill American Soldiers also equiped with, oh imagine the coincidence, Colt... ummm... I wonder if there are comercial interests...
Back on the main topic, abortion can ensure the increase of life quality in couples all around the world...by giving them the right to chose when and where do they want to have their kids in order to increase their mental (and sometimes physical well being).

 

[Lizardbreath]

Sigh I just thought I would settle this once and for all. Here is a list of your argument which you summarized and my rebuttle for each. But of course...you probably won't read it.

"As you should know, abortion was legalized in the court case Roe vs Wade. Justice Blackmun said that the Constitution does not specifically mention a privacy right, but to quote Justice Blackmun “in varying contexts the Court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right.†To continue his reason for justifying abortion, "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." So the whole reasoning behind the legalization of abortion was not even based on the Constitution."

Roe Vs. Wade decision concluded something different your argument is false/misleading again...just because One justice says something doesn't effect the outcome of the rest of courts ruling. Which you clearly missed.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

Lets move on now to griswold vs. connecticut

"This right of privacy in fact comes from another court case, Griswold vs Connecticut. The right of privacy comes from the first amendment, third amendment, fourth amendment, and fifth amendment. In a summary, the Griswold vs Connecticut case determined four things main things, there are unmentioned and fundamental rights in the Constitution, if something is not mentioned as a right, then it doesn’t mean that right does not exist, the unmentioned rights can’t be restricted and the fourteenth amendment applies this constraint to states, and that the ‘right of privacy’ was one of the unmentioned rights."

Counter against Griswold vs.Connetticuct (I posted)
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth Amendment, or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest," and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. ((http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/pro...w/griswold.html))

 

[Lizardbreath]

Now onto the fourteenth ammendment.

"Now onto the fourteenth amendment which deal with limitations on life, liberty, and property. Though we are guaranteed rights by the government, the government can in fact ‘infringe’ upon these as long as both notice is given and it has an opportunity to be heard. Also, there is the fact that this amendment extended the Bill of rights to both states and Congress, and was not in any way intended to add concrete rights to the Constitution. So you ask, where are the ‘privacy rights’ from?"

My rebuttle,
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
-Not too mention that this ammendment has nothing too do with abortion.


Now onto the ninth ammendment which you, again, attempt to stretch too something is not and fail miserably.

"Then of course there is also the ninth amendment, which was used to justify the outcome of Griswold vs Connecticut. This amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." To be specific, look at the word retain. This means that there are designated rights that are guaranteed by the constitutional text and should in no way ever be used for interpreting so as to deny rights that are not even specified. There is a clear violation of our the right to life here. If you remember or not, the right to life, that comes from a certain document known as the Declaration of Independence. It states that life is one of the unalienable rights that is mentioned in the charter of the United States. It even states that “all men are created equally†meaning that all human beings have the right to live, regardless of whether it is ‘potential’ or ‘full’. It gets worse, Justice Blackmun cited what he called a "fact" that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense" so that he could justify denying rights to unborn babies. And remember that part of history I mentioned early, the thing called slavery"

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This ammendment was included to insure that any powers not given to the government were then given to the people. Thus controlling the amount of power the federal government had to regulate.

" NINTH AMENDMENT

__________

UNENUMERATED RIGHTS

[[Page 1503]]



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the
Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution
because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing
that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be
dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on
the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was
unrestrained as to those.\1\ Madison adverted to this argument in
presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ``It
has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating
particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those
rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by
implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended
to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were
consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I
have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this
system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have
attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the
fourth resolution.''\2\ It is clear from its text and from Madison's
statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making
clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to
increase the powers of the national government in areas

[[Page 1504]]
not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee
of a right or a proscription of an infringement.\3\ Recently, however,
the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the
existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless
protected by other provisions.

\1\The Federalist No. 84 (Modern Library ed. 1937).
\2\1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789). Earlier, Madison had written
to Jefferson: ``My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of
rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be
included in the enumeration. . . . I have not viewed it in an important
light--1. because I conceive that in a certain degree . . . the rights
in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are
granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive
declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained
in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in
particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much
more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.'' 5 Writings
of James Madison, 271-72 (G. Hunt ed. 1904). See also 3 J. Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1898 (1833).
\3\To some extent, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments overlap with
respect to the question of unenumerated powers, one of the two concerns
expressed by Madison, more clearly in his letter to Jefferson but also
present in his introductory speech. Supra, n.2 and accompanying text." (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt9.html)
-You might even consider doing some background research before you spout out irrelevant BS on this issue.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Now for plyer vs. Doe...which again has little or nothing to doo with this issue.

"If you wish to pull out the card that says “born or naturalizedâ€, the court case Plyler vs Doe gave aliens, defined by our government as “any person not a citizen or national of the United Statesâ€, which would include unborn babies. If you question whether or not it is a human, all you have to do is look at 1) It is alive, the unborn baby can reproduce his own cells and develop them, 2) It is completely human in its characteristics, including the well pointed out 46 human chromosomes, and 3) Nothing new will be added to the unborn baby from the time the sperm enters the egg to the time the unborn baby dies as an old man/woman. It is not in the ‘gray’ area, it is quite clear that the baby is not dead because it can reproduce its own cells and develop them, so it has to be alive."

Just for more fun to disprove your argument Plyer vs. Doe was based against illegal immigrants. Not Prenatal rights in the least bit. READ.

In considering this motion, the District Court made extensive findings of fact. The court found that neither § 21.031 nor the School District policy implementing it had "either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas." Respecting defendants' further claim that § 21.031 was simply a financial measure designed to avoid a drain on the State's fisc, the court recognized that the increases in population resulting from the immigration of Mexican nationals into the United States had created problems for the public schools of the State, and that these problems were exacerbated by the special educational needs of immigrant Mexican children. The court noted, however, that the increase in school enrollment was primarily attributable to the admission of children who were legal residents. It also found that while the "exclusion of all undocumented children from the public schools in Texas would eventually result in economies at some level," funding from both the State and Federal Governments was based primarily on the number of children enrolled. In net effect then, barring undocumented children from the schools would save money, but it would "not necessarily" improve "the quality of education." The court further observed that the impact of § 21.031 was borne primarily by a very small subclass of illegal aliens, "entire families who have migrated illegally and -- for all practical purposes -- permanently to the United States." Finally, the court noted that under current laws and practices "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow," and that without an education, these undocumented children, "[already] disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class."

The District Court held that illegal aliens were entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that § 21.031 violated that Clause. Suggesting that "the state's exclusion of undocumented children from its public schools . . . may well be the type of invidiously motivated state action for which the suspect classification doctrine was designed," the court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the statute would survive a "strict scrutiny" analysis because, in any event, the discrimination embodied in the statute was not supported by a rational basis.
-Again research your cases before you spout them off as sources and look like a complete noob.
(http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~bjordan/PlylervDoe.html)

-Yes again...I must not even look at your arguments. Considering that I have posted complete and total 100% accurate rebuttals against yours. I must be wrong though. Since, again, you are a master of the constitution and the supreme court cases...as shown above.

In short, Do research before you site sources that have little or no significance to the case. And if you do present a case make sure you know what the case is about and/or you know what you are typing when you "attempt" to present a case. Because now I have just proved that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.


Edit#2 too cheese: You posted
"There's a reason for that, though. More than one, actually:
1. You argue against points we never made.
2. When you argue against points we do make, you ignore the parts of your sources that contradict you.
3. When we present you with facts that contradict your claims entirely, you figure the best thing to do is ignore them."

Since now I know you didn't even read my arguments on the last two pages and see that they are in fact against the points tipsy made. You have just made yourself look like ignoarant. Again.

 

[Tipsy]

Edit: BTW you always seem to think I don't read what u put in. Yes I quote it and write arguments against it because I must be psychic and no how to respond.

If you read it, then you just for some reason skip whatever doesn't fit into your argument.

So that means when you voted for bush that you are voting for not only millions of soldiers/civilians killed but you are also voting too increase our defecit. GJ. You...yet again...just gg'ed yourself.

If Kerry was president then the soliders/civilians would still be killed. We are in Iraq right now. That is a fact. If Kerry was elected president, we would still would have been in Iraq. Just because Kerry gets elected doesn't mean he is going to build a time machine and stop us from going to Iraq. So you are saying that we can put a price on 1.2 - 1.7 million lives because voting for Kerry would supposedly stop our deficit from rising. I am just picking the better of two evils, deaths from war + abortion, or deaths just from war, you can see which one I would consider less evil.

these convicted killers, true they harmed and damaged other peoples rights but, nevertheless, you are taking a life and, you're just becoming like them; descending to their level...

I am not saying that I support the death penalty at all, because I don't, but your rights to life, liberty, and property can be taken away by due process. The difference here is there is no due process in taking away the rights of unborn babies.

Roe Vs. Wade decision concluded something different your argument is false/misleading again...just because One justice says something doesn't effect the outcome of the rest of courts ruling. Which you clearly missed.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

Congratulations, you just attacked historical background information. There is absolutely no argument in there, that is purely historical background. As Undead Cheese put it, "You argue against points we never made."

Counter against Griswold vs.Connetticuct (I posted)
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth Amendment, or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the aenough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest," and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. ((http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/pro...w/griswold.html))dditional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong

Congratulations, you just once again attacked historical background information. Good job and attacking points never made. Not to mention what you posted only was a more elaborate and not to mention not your work, of exactly what I had posted. You have once again "argue against points we never made."

Edit: Ran out of room, please hold.

 

[Tipsy]

My rebuttle,
The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
-Not too mention that this ammendment has nothing too do with abortion.

You have just attacked more historical background information. I was explaining where the privacy rights come from. The argument about the fourteenth amendment which I have made is not even in that paragraph, but since you have somehow magically thrown it in there, I will respond. More specifically:
"But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."
None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. Well guess what, none indactes, with any assurance, that it doesn't have to do with pre-natal application. My question is where does your opinion, keyword, opinion, come from. My opinion comes from the charter of the United States, the Declaration of Independance, saying all men are created equally. Where does your opinion on this come from, anything as significant as what is supposed to point out the purpose of the United States of America?

UNENUMERATED RIGHTS

[[Page 1503]]



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the
Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution
because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing
that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be
dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on
the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was
unrestrained as to those.\1\ Madison adverted to this argument in
presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ``It
has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating
particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those
rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by
implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended
to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were
consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I
have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this
system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have
attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the
fourth resolution.''\2\ It is clear from its text and from Madison's
statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making
clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to
increase the powers of the national government in areas

[[Page 1504]]
not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee
of a right or a proscription of an infringement

.\3\ Recently, however,
the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the
existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless
protected by other provisions.

\1\The Federalist No. 84 (Modern Library ed. 1937).
\2\1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789). Earlier, Madison had written
to Jefferson: ``My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of
rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be
included in the enumeration. . . . I have not viewed it in an important
light--1. because I conceive that in a certain degree . . . the rights
in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are
granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive
declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained
in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in
particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much
more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.'' 5 Writings
of James Madison, 271-72 (G. Hunt ed. 1904). See also 3 J. Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1898 (1833).
\3\To some extent, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments overlap with
respect to the question of unenumerated powers, one of the two concerns
expressed by Madison, more clearly in his letter to Jefferson but also
present in his introductory speech. Supra, n.2 and accompanying text." (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt9.html)

Read very closely, “To be specific, look at the word retain. This means that there are designated rights that are guaranteed by the constitutional text and should in no way ever be used for interpreting so as to deny rights that are not even specified.†I believe you just wasted everyone’s time by writing that whole thing when I pointed it out in one sentence. But you see, as I said, the Declaration of Independence is the charter of our nation and states the purpose of our nation. If we take away the right that is supposedly inalienable, or unchallengeable, what stops us from challenging other rights that are supposedly unchallengeable. Once again, you have wasted three paragraphs with what I had put into one sentence. Attack the points I make.

-You might even consider doing some background research before you spout out irrelevant BS on this issue.

I agree, you really do need to tell yourself that.

Just for more fun to disprove your argument Plyer vs. Doe was based against illegal immigrants. Not Prenatal rights in the least bit. READ.

Ah but you see, a baby has to be one of four things. A citizen of the country, which is self explanatory, he/she must be legally in the country (legal alien), illegally in the country (illegal alien), or not alive.
You have clearly pointed out that he/she is not a citizen, and I and Undead Cheese have pointed out that it is in fact alive. So that leaves two options. Illegal alien which is given rights by the Plyer vs. Doe, which I assumed you would consider it of the two. If you consider an unborn baby a legal alien, then I can show you why it still has rights. Every single human being has these rights when in the jurisdiction of the United States. Pick one of these, which you believe it is, everything else you say has been pointless.

Not Prenatal rights in the least bit.

Tell me where it says word for word that it does not apply to prenatal rights.

READ

If only you would.

-Yes again...I must not even look at your arguments.

You are exactly right, you haven't even bothered to look at the argument, let alone read them.

Considering that I have [not] posted complete and total 100% accurate rebuttals against yours

I fixed your sentence for you.

I must be wrong though.

Hit the nail on the head.

Since, again, you are a master of the constitution and the supreme court cases...as shown above.

Compared to you, yes, but compared to many other, I would say not.

In short, [you have] Do[ne] your research before you site sources that have (omitted words) significance to the case. And you [have] present[ed] a case you know what the case is about[.] and/or you know what you are typing when you (omitted words) present[ed] a [legally sound] case. Because now I have just proved that [I, Lizardbreath] have NO IDEA what [I am] talking about.

I have fixed this for you as well.

Since now I know [I, Lizardbreath] didn't even read [your] arguments on the last two pages and see that they are in fact [legally sound]. [I, Lizardbreath] have just made [my]self look ignorant (fixed spelling error). Again.

Fixed this as well.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Tipsy you have no clue what you are talking about. You just can't accept it that I am right and you could possibly be wrong. The reasons for the history part...You wanna know why? Because that is what it was made for. It wasn't meant at all for abortion in the least bit and I am showing you why. Yet for some reason you believe it is. So once again you are wrong.

 

[Homem mAIOR]

Well I just think that posting part of the american constitution isn't a good example I mean, your constitution is completly outdated... I mean you (as the american people) have made little changes since it was created... And I bet you (Tipsy) mark yourself way against experiments in staminal cells right??

 

[Sogeking]

Well I just think that posting part of the american constitution isn't a good example I mean, your constitution is completly outdated... I mean you (as the american people) have made little changes since it was created... And I bet you (Tipsy) mark yourself way against experiments in staminal cells right??

first: if your going to take such large ammounts of the US constitution, dont just use HUGE CHUNKS...

second: So what if its outdated? Premarital sex is much more common today, do you think the church should change the bible to accomidate? do you think the constitution should accomidate any way the wind blows?

third: Are you aware the stem cell research grant in california? and dont make bets and guesses as to what a person says and apply them as fact. Just ask, what is your view on abortion then?

What i have to ask of you is:

1) whats your name mean

2) what happend to your argument about voting for "doofus" bush and that he personally causes MILLIONS of deaths of civilians/soldiers because of the iraq war?

3) How about people just stop murdering? i know it may seem like something that will never happen but, think about it, no more death penalty needed whatsoever. If people were just not stupid/arrogant/ignorant, there wouldnt be so many murders a year. thougths?

4) do you have any idea what creating a democracy(?) in iraq did to the middle east ATM?

 

[Tipsy]

Tipsy you have no clue what you are talking about. You just can't accept it that I am right and you could possibly be wrong. The reasons for the history part...You wanna know why? Because that is what it was made for. It wasn't meant at all for abortion in the least bit and I am showing you why. Yet for some reason you believe it is. So once again you are wrong.

I think Undead Cheese put it very nicely:
1. You argue against points we never made.
2. When you argue against points we do make, you ignore the parts of your sources that contradict you.
3. When we present you with facts that contradict your claims entirely, you figure the best thing to do is ignore them.
(Blue originally posted by Undead Cheese)
Over half of your posts was backing up my historical background information that you somehow thought was my argument. The only real question, isn't it an oxymoron if not all 'humans' have 'human rights'. No matter how hard you want it to be otherwise, all humans have human rights. The only argument that is used today by the pro-choice organizations is an unborn baby is basically not alive. That is the only argument that can justify abortion. You cannot change our legal system to fit your views. There is nothing else that can be used to counter my, Undead Cheese, and TBS' argument other than an unborn baby is not alive. To reemphasize:
1. You argue against points we never made.
2. When you argue against points we do make, you ignore the parts of your sources that contradict you.
3. When we present you with facts that contradict your claims entirely, you figure the best thing to do is ignore them.
(Blue originally posted by Undead Cheese)

And I bet you (Tipsy) mark yourself way against experiments in staminal cells right??

What gave it away?
(Yes)

 

[CelestialBadger]

Plyler vs Doe doesn't apply to fetuses, just so that's cleared up. Would you mind explaining again directly quoting the Constitution + court cases that actually apply why abortion is illegal?

 

[Lizardbreath]

Sigh...you again missed the logic behind my post.
1. You argue against points we never made.
-YEs that is why I directly quoted you and posted under it. You, again, have shown you have no idea what you post.
2. When you argue against points we do make, you ignore the parts of your sources that contradict you.
-Which must be why I quoted your post and made my rebuttal. Wow your 0-2 so far.
3. When we present you with facts that contradict your claims entirely, you figure the best thing to do is ignore them.
-Again you literally just posted the same thing 3 times. GJ 0-3.

You lost this one tipsy get over it.

 

[Tipsy]

Lizardbreath, listen to this. You never had an argument. If you have no argument, there can't be any logic behind it. People have been telling you this since your first posts. You cannot beat an argument with a non-existant argument. Lizardbreath, please stop spamming this thread with your:
1) Support of my historical background information which you assume are points you are beating by posting somebody else's work through copying and pasting and then assuming there is an argument involved when you do nothing but support it. Fact: No debate here.
2) When you argue against points we do make, you ignore the parts of your sources that contradict you, especially in the fact that the definition of posterity used by our government, is future generations. Since when will the government ever use a private organzation, who makes the dictionary you use, use their definition over the technical legal definition the United States government uses. Fact: No debate here.
3) And yes, it does take me posting something over three times, because it takes you more than three times to comprehend and read. All I ask is that instead of spamming the Arcane Sanctuary you read and understand. It is as simple as that. Fact: No debate here.
4) I fail to see how I lose against a nonexistant argument.

I can now see why people consider the American educational system a failure with the type of posts that come out of Lizardbreath.

My full attention will now be turned to CB, because he has been waiting patiently, and not pulling random opinions out of his ass and using them as fact.
Note: You have already had you chance and failed Lizardbreath, please stop digging yourself into a hole that is already above your head.
--------------------------------------
Since I have already posted the historical background countless times, I hope you don't mind if I leave it out and just go to the point.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,"

The definition in the dictionary which has been uselessly pointed out it:
"1 : the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2 : all future generations"
To point out, notice there are two definitions to the word. To go further, the one used by the United States legal system is all future generations. So far there is no argument, just boring facts. The first thing I point out is if you have to be stubborn and attempt to erase 'all future generations' from the definition, then so be it. The fact is, either one of these definitions can be used. How is killing the 'unborn babies', the 'future generations' (or the future offspring, to make everyone happy I insert both usuable definitions and then use the one recognized by our United States legal system), or put in the constitution, 'posterity', not a breach of constitutional rights? So here we are, the future generations, being the unborn babies, are guaranteed by the constitution "common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty". More specifically, the common defense. The definition of defense is "the act of defending" and defending is "to drive danger or attack away from". I am pretty sure that keeping the fetus alive is driving the danger of death away from it. Please tell me how abortion is not against the constitution. If you answer any single question from this post, tell me why the 'posterity' all of a sudden doesn't have the rights that it is given in the quote above. Don't tell me, "oh, because roe vs wade says so", tell me how from the constitution abortion isn't murder. Roe vs Wade according to the preamble in itself is unconstitutional.

Note to Lizardbreath: No matter how hard you try at this time in your life, you cannot change the definition used by our United States legal system.

Note: As to Plyler vs Doe, this was only in response to Lizardbreath being stubborn and refusing to not have his magical ability to change the United States legal system to his very will.

 

[CelestialBadger]

You're defining a "generation" as starting at conception. Let's look at what Webster says:
1 a : a body of living beings constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor b : a group of individuals born and living contemporaneously

Thus the preamble states that the purpose of the Constitution is to provide liberty to those born in the future.

 

[Undead Cheese]

Celestial, please understand that there is more than one definition of the word "generation." Here's another definition of the word for you, taken right from dictionary.com:

A form or stage in the life cycle of an organism

Seems to me like a fetus fits that definition perfectly.

 

[Sogeking]

1. The act of generating or begetting; procreation, as of animals.

2. Origination by some process, mathematical, chemical, or vital; production; formation; as, the generation of sounds, of gases, of curves, etc.

3. That which is generated or brought forth; progeny; offspiring.

4. A single step or stage in the succession of natural descent; a rank or remove in genealogy. Hence: The body of those who are of the same genealogical rank or remove from an ancestor; the mass of beings living at one period; also, the average lifetime of man, or the ordinary period of time at which one rank follows another, or father is succeeded by child, usually assumed to be one third of a century; an age.

This is the book of the generations of Adam. --Gen. v. 1.

Ye shall remain there [in Babylon] many years, and for a long season, namely, seven generations. --Baruch vi. 3.

All generations and ages of the Christian church. --Hooker.

5. Race; kind; family; breed; stock.

Thy mother's of my generation; what's she, if I be a dog? --Shak.

6. (Geom.) The formation or production of any geometrical magnitude, as a line, a surface, a solid, by the motion, in accordance with a mathematical law, of a point or a magnitude; as, the generation of a line or curve by the motion of a point, of a surface by a line, a sphere by a semicircle, etc.

7. (Biol.) The aggregate of the functions and phenomene which attend reproduction.

Note: There are four modes of generation in the animal kingdom: scissiparity or by fissiparous generation, gemmiparity or by budding, germiparity or by germs, and oviparity or by ova.

www.define.com

 

[Lizardbreath]

Tipsy you still think you are right? Allow me to put it in lamens terms for you.

1. Your so called "Legal Grounds" were completely off base. I showed you the history of the ammendments/court cases just so that you can realize that you are trying too make an argument that is in no way a part of the topic we are discussing. The ninth ammendment for example, do you know why that was created? I will just have to give you a history lesson again. IT was created so that the government wouldn't become so powerful. Of course your stating for some reason that somehow gives the government the right too ban abortions? WTF are you talking about. Same thing with Plyer vs. Doe (another source that you claim had too do with the subject). Has little if any relevance too the topic. But yet you say it is backing. So please quit spamming this thread with your irrelevant BS. It's only making you look worse.

For your so called "rebuttal" about me saying that I ignore points that are weak against my arguments. When it says "future generations" it means generations that are going to be born and live fruitful lives. There is nothing in future generations that has to deal with pre-natal generations.

-Against your posterity argument
pos·ter·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-str-t)
n.
1. all of the offspring of a given progenitor
2. all future generations

-Now lets go on and look up offspring.

off·spring ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôfsprng, f-)
n. pl. offspring

1. The progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group.
2. A child of particular parentage.
3. A result; a product.

3. Progeny
prog·e·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-n)
n. pl. progeny or prog·e·nies

1. One born of, begotten by, or derived from another; an offspring or a descendant.
2. Offspring or descendants considered as a group.
3. A result of creative effort; a product