"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:lecln15dsjp542ev3s29mknd0oudsl1ggh@4ax.com...

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:32:08 -0500, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ii9ln19psuc5vpipol558el70i1otlu7l3@4ax.com...

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:23:15 -0500, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:n69ln1dlcuuuplgee9ob6urp32vn2eremj@4ax.com...

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:10:36 -0500, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:

"Ray Fischer" <

duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

duke wrote:

On 14 Nov 2005 20:49:21 -0800,

J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:

Judge Alito was absolutely correct when he wrote "the
Constitution
does not
protect a right to an abortion."

Of course it does.

Of course it doesn't. It protects a right to privacy.

Which has nothing to do with abortion.

Which means it doesn't support abortion.

Which means it support arbortion as one of many rights protected by
the constitution.

Why doesn't it support abortion after the fetus is viable?
A woman can't freely choose to abort legally after so much time has
passed
and the fetus is viable.
So what happens to the constitutional rights you claim she has to
abort????

Is she suddenly "enslaved"?

Is there a constitutional right to free speech?
Yes?

Why doesn't the constitution support shouting 'fire' in a crowded
theatre, then?

Same reason the constitution doesn't support people who are using hate
speaches or threatening.

It's in the best interest of the public.

Would you not agree that it's in the best interests of the public to
support the freedom of citizens as much as possible?

Of course, but remember...the scales represent the best interest of
society
and the best interest of the individual...our constitution along with the
USSC tries to keep it balanced. Society's interest, however, will usually
always trump the individuals best interest.

I would say that the best interests of society lie in the preservation
of personal freedom, wouldn't you? Not in the denial of such as a
result of a medical condition.

It depends on what you refer to as "personal freedom".
Should we have the personal freedom to just do what ever we want, where ever
we want, when ever we want?

With no regard to the public?

Seriously, this whole debate on abortion and the constitution I think is
being way blown out of proportion.

I don't see how anyone can successfully argue that the constitution protects
a woman's right to abort, when we can plainly see that it doesn't. The USSC
has give this to the states to decide.

It's selective incorporation.

Do you know that there are still amendments that the USSC has not applied to
the states?

The Second Amendment
The Fifth Amendment clause guarenteeing criminal prosecution only on a grand
jury indictment
The Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial in a civil case
The Third Amendment prohibiting the quartering of soldiers in private houses
and the Eight Amendment prohibiting excessive fines.

Those Amendments have yet to be addressed by the USSC

The states decide

On the issue of abortion, I believe that during Roe v. Wade the USSC gave
only an opinion. I don't believe that the Federal Governments intention was
to get involved in the issue at all and they preferred that the states
decide what is and what isn't acceptable on the issue of abortion.

As I asked before, how can one argue that the constitution protects a
woman's right to abortion, when it clearly doesn't.

The scales of justice

one side represents societys best interest..the other side represents an
individuals best interest.

We try to keep both in the middle..the scale balanced.

The question I am asking is just what specifically happens to the woman
in
order for her to lose her "constitutional right to abortion" as she goes
further along in her pregnancy?

I would say that some out there have a misguided view of how much a
women's right to self-determination is worth, derived not from a legal
opinion but from personal bias.

If she is "enslaved" (which she isn't), as many on the pro-choice
claim...why is it o.k. after the fetus is "viable" to keep her
"enslaved"?

It's not, actually.

It appears as if we both see the issue here. That there is a flaw in the
argument that the constitution protects a woman's right to abortion.

No, I don't think there is such a flaw. There is a difference between
protects and guarantees.

There is no guarantee that a woman has a right to abortion.

While it's true that a person has the right to feel safe from unreasonable
search and seizure, as our fourth amendment states one must be made aware
that the fourth amendment addresses Governments role in search and seizure.
I don't think it's fair or correct to apply it to a woman's right to have an
abortion.

The same goes with the 13th amendment.

A woman isn't "enslaved" when she is pregnant.

Her body is taking over and doing what nature intends...to nurture the
fetus, to protect the fetus, until the fetus is prepared to exit.

When you look up the word enslaved, it refers you to "slave".

If you look up the word slave, you see why it can not be applied to a
pregnant woman.

Here is the key reason why.

Most pro-choice argue that the fetus is not a "person". Look at the
conditions that are required in order for someone to be a "slave". They
must be controlled by another "person".

So, if we are going to say that a woman is enslaved, then we must say that
the fetus is a person. And you know, as well as I know...no one on the
pro-choice side is going to agree to that.

The point Brian is that the constitution does NOT protect a woman's
right to abortion.

"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.Henderson@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rkmmn1tle9ghm7673mvhi5jji477rbauu5@4ax.com...

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:32:08 -0500, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:

Of course, but remember...the scales represent the best interest of
society
and the best interest of the individual...our constitution along with the
USSC tries to keep it balanced. Society's interest, however, will usually
always trump the individuals best interest.

And exactly what is society's interest in an individual pregnancy?

The point Brian is that the constitution does NOT protect a woman's right to
abortion.
That's a myth. The USSC has given the power to decide their abortion laws to
the states.

The Federal Government isn't