Broader Issues Highlighted by the Latest Abortion Decision

[Ponder This]

Taking a broader view of American history, it seems that Americans do not have a real handle on the question of 'Whose rights are protected by the United States Constitution." I will ask you to cite and post the specific clause of the Constitution to support your position.

Answer unavailable: "The People of the United States"
The Constitution begins with:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

I would like to add, however, that just because the Constitution does not protect the rights of other people doesn't mean that other people do not have rights. For example the Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

As you can see, the Declaration of Independence points out that Governments are instituted to secure rights.

Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the Declaration of Independence enumerates all the rights of the people of the United States nor all the rights of other people. Nonetheless, people still have rights. It goes without saying. It is self-evident.

 

[Valjean]

I would like to add, however, that just because the Constitution does not protect the rights of other people doesn't mean that other people do not have rights.

As you can see, the Declaration of Independence points out that Governments are instituted to secure rights.

But, apparently, only for citizens, and only for particular citizens, at that.

Isn't the whole purpose of our government's black sites, and even public detention sites (think Guantanamo Bay), to legally deny others the human rights and the principles of justice we claim to value?

It seems, "unalienable rights" and "liberty and justice for all" is a sham.

 

[fantome profane]

Just for a second I misread the title to this thread. I thought I saw “Border Issues Highlighted by the Latest Abortion Decision”.

It made me think if there were fetuses trying to come across the U.S. border from Mexico many Republicans would be happy to shoot them.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Well, according to the poll above, no one thinks that the unborn, regardless of parental citizenship, are protected by the US Constitution. That is surprising given the demographics of CF.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, according to the poll above, no one thinks that the unborn, regardless of parental citizenship, are protected by the US Constitution. That is surprising given the demographics of CF.

That's why it shouldn't be determine by the SCOTUS.
At least not until they add it to the BORs or the US Congress at least passes some law regarding it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just for a second I misread the title to this thread. I thought I saw “Border Issues Highlighted by the Latest Abortion Decision”.

It made me think if there were fetuses trying to come across the U.S. border from Mexico many Republicans would be happy to shoot them.

I read the same thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's why it shouldn't be determine by the SCOTUS.
At least not until they add it to the BORs or the US Congress at least passes some law regarding it.

So Roe v Wade should stand for now? Just making sure that is what you are saying. I am not sure if Congress can make such a law. And either side would have to get rid of the present version of the filibuster in its present form to do so.

 

[Nakosis]

So Roe v Wade should stand for now? Just making sure that is what you are saying. I am not sure if Congress can make such a law. And either side would have to get rid of the present version of the filibuster in its present form to do so.

To me, my personal feelings are less relevant than the democratic process.
Personality, I'm against abortion. However I think the laws should be made through a democratic process. Not just based on what I personally feel.
At the same time, I don't like the government telling me what to do. I'm stuck with no good answer, so whichever way the majority of the people want to go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me, my personal feelings are less relevant than the democratic process.
Personality, I'm against abortion. However I think the laws should be made through a democratic process. Not just based on what I personally feel.
At the same time, I don't like the government telling me what to do. I'm stuck with no good answer, so whichever way the majority of the people want to go.

The vast majority of the American people are pro-abortion. By at least 59%. I can supply the polls. They want little to no restriction on abortions. Personally I have no problem on banning late term elective abortions. There is a reason that anti-abortion people oppose that. There are already very very few late term elective abortions. Almost all of the horror stories that you here are of abortions that are already illegal or almost never done. Late term abortions are very expensive. Elective ones are not covered by insurance. That along with the fact that most women make up their mind long before then is why they are almost never heard of. When they do occur it is usually because the life or health of the mother is seriously threatened.

 

[fantome profane]

To me, my personal feelings are less relevant than the democratic process.
Personality, I'm against abortion. However I think the laws should be made through a democratic process. Not just based on what I personally feel.
At the same time, I don't like the government telling me what to do. I'm stuck with no good answer, so whichever way the majority of the people want to go.

Strange interesting fact. Of the 5 Supreme Court Justices who seem to be supporting overturn Roe, 4 of them were appointed by a President who lost the popular vote.

Strange democratic process.

 

[Nakosis]

Strange interesting fact. Of the 5 Supreme Court Justices who seem to be supporting overturn Roe, 4 of them were appointed by a President who lost the popular vote.

Strange democratic process.

Then best not to rely on the SCOTUS to make laws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then best not to rely on the SCOTUS to make laws.

When did they ever do that?

 

[esmith]

SCOTUS does not write laws, they only rule on the constitutionality of laws enacted.
As it stands now the only laws governing abortion are written by a State
Roe v Wade judgement was based on personal privacy in the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments, as well as in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment; Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for the court in Jan of 1973 on a 7-2 decision.
In other words they, the SCOTUS, basically did not reach a decision on the constittuonality of abortion.
They can only rule on those abortion laws passed by each State.
As far as I'm concerned abortion should be legal, within certain parameters. Those parameters are beyond my purview.
Now as far as Roe v Wade, it is my opinion that it should be overturned forcing the U.S. goverment to write such law or allow each State to enact their own laws.

 

[pearl]

There is a clause to 'protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.' In the present case going before the Court, Rod v Wade, who are the minority?

 

[fantome profane]

There is a clause to 'protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.' In the present case going before the Court, Rod v Wade, who are the minority?

The 51% minority.