Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?

[leibowde84]

Cops execute innocent citizens with impunity. Is this part of the social contract? How would we know if no one has a copy of it? Anyway, could you cite this law which simultaneously gives police powers to the state & also the power to draft men into the military? I have a copy of the Constitution right here, & I just can't seem to find anything enabling government to do this.

I'm not sure why you think the Constitution would provide this, as it is a limiting force against the Government infringing on the rights of citizens. The Constitution is an important part of this social contract, but it is only one side of it. And, where did you get the mistaken idea that a writing was necessary to create contractual obligations?

 

[leibowde84]

I deny that an obligation I never agreed to is binding upon me. What part of the Constitution authorizes involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime? Surely, if this authority exists, the Constitution must state so. But if it is there somewhere, why doesn't the equal protection clause apply....you know...cuz only healthy heterosexual non-clergy males around 20 with low draft lottery numbers had the obligation to kill & die for everyone else?

If the draft happened today it would be very different than it was in the 1960s and 70s. Our society has changed quite a bit since then.

And, there are a lot of rights/obligations not found in the Constitution, as that document is not the end all be all of American citizenship.

 

[leibowde84]

Is this contract written down somewhere, or is it made up ad hoc? Is there any limit to what government can demand of us in exchange for living here?

This is where the Constitution (Bill of Rights in particular) fits in, limiting the power of State and Federal Governments.

 

[Revoltingest]

There have been many courts that have decided that the social contract between citizen and government is valid and enfoceable, inluding the SCOTUS. Read the following and you will understand better, I think. But, this is settled law, and this explaains how all 4 elements are satisfied, and the necessity of recognizing this contract. Page 35 explains it rather well.

You are welcome to disagree with the opinions of the Jusitices, but that would merely be your opinion, as you have no authority to disobey the judicial system.

http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1787&context=faculty_scholarship&sei-redir=1&referer=http://www.bing.com/search?q=social+contract+case+law+us&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC#search="social contract case law us"

Justices who rule in violation of the Constitution are the lowest & most scurrilous. curs in the land. The article I've given the clear & undisputed legal requirements of a contract, & shown that the "social contract" fails to meet every single one except for consideration, & even that amounts to slave wages for the most onerous of all jobs.

Your linked article makes no cogent argument for a constitutional basis to enforce a one sided agreement against an unwilling party. Moreover, it even recognizes that the "social contract" theory enabled & protected white superiority & slavery. Essentially, the social contract is the legal construct that when some practice is widely practiced, this breadth of acceptance makes it law, eg, Jim Crow laws are valid because government imposes them & people obey them.

Where this murky unwritten & frequently altered-by-fiat "social contract" can supersede the Constitution, none of our codified civil liberties are safe. In no portion of the Constitution or amendments is the authority to impose involuntary servitude upon an innocent minority granted. Do you argue that government has the right to exceed their Constitutional authority as they deem needed?

 

[leibowde84]

Justices who rule in violation of the Constitution are the lowest & most scurrilous curs in the land.

They did not violate the Constitution or "rule in violation" of it in any way. Can you explain specifically what you mean? What specifically in the Constitution did they violate?

 

[metis]

As bizarre and wrong as this sounds, the Constitution says what the courts say it says. IOW, it's both interpretations and applications that can be variable.

Often there's an element of hypocrisy that creeps in with the idea that there's "activist courts" when they rule against what we believe in, but then drop that terminology when we agree with their decisions.

BTW, I'm in no way implying that courts always rule correctly, which is especially obvious because courts sometimes reverse previous decisions they've made.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never said that the Government can do whatever they want. We have rights enumerated in the Constitution, which is our safeguard against unjust governmental action. Like any contract, both sides are limited. Please do not put words in my mouth, as I never once said that the government could do "whatever they want."

But to grant them the power to impose involuntary servitude upon a minority (not convicted of any crime) is not granted in the Constitution, yet you favor bestowing this upon them under the "social contract" legal theory. To enable government to assume powers not constitutionally granted them, & to ignore civil liberties explicitly granted us, this effectively removes all limits on governmental power. If they "want" something, then we're left with nothing to stop them so long as a majority of voters doesn't object.

At this point, we cease being a constitutional republic, & become a quasi-democratic tyranny of the majority. This last claim is not mere histrionics because it is the majority who vote to impose the duty to fight in the trenches upon a small minority, ie, males between 20 & 25 who aren't clergy, who have low draft lottery numbers, who aren't politically connected, who are healthy, who aren't felons, who don't have a family to support, who aren't in seminary school, but who are legal residents (even non-citizens). We should note that this would appear to violate the "social contract" of equal treatment under the law. No women or clergy have any legal obligation to defend the country. And until recently gays were even prohibited from serving (per the "social contract" of that day). We don't allow housing discrimination against them per law & social contract. It seems that your social contract is naught but an excuse to act with caprice but without constitutional limitation.

This is not to put words in your mouth, but to claim ramifications from your position.

 

[Revoltingest]

As bizarre and wrong as this sounds, the Constitution says what the courts say it says. IOW, it's both interpretations and applications that can be variable.

Often there's an element of hypocrisy that creeps in with the idea that there's "activist courts" when they rule against what we believe in, but then drop that terminology when we agree with their decisions.

BTW, I'm in no way implying that courts always rule correctly, which is especially obvious because courts sometimes reverse previous decisions they've made.

There are times when there is very compelling evidence that the courts rule in against the Constitution, eg, Kelo v New London. (Note that some USSC justices agree with me on this.....just not a majority.) For the government to treat something as legal has the nominal effect of being legal, but is nonetheless illegal. I such cases citizen resistance is warranted. Fighting the draft during the Viet Nam war is one such cause. The war was illegal, the daft was unconstitutional, the soldiers were treated as mere fodder, the US murdered & tortured many innocent non-combatants, & our leaders lacked a desire or plan to even win.

 

[leibowde84]

But to grant them the power to impose involuntary servitude upon a minority (not convicted of any crime) is not granted in the Constitution, yet you favor bestowing this upon them under the "social contract" legal theory. To enable government to assume powers not constitutionally granted them, & to ignore civil liberties explicitly granted us, this effectively removes all limits on governmental power. If they "want" something, then we're left with nothing to stop them so long as a majority of voters doesn't object.

At this point, we cease being a constitutional republic, & become a quasi-democratic tyranny of the majority. This last claim is not mere histrionics because it is the majority who vote to impose the duty to fight in the trenches upon a small minority, ie, males between 20 & 25 who aren't clergy, who have low draft lottery numbers, who aren't politically connected, who are healthy, who aren't felons, who don't have a family to support, who aren't in seminary school, but who are legal residents (even non-citizens). We should note that this would appear to violate the "social contract" of equal treatment under the law. No women or clergy have any legal obligation to defend the country. And until recently gays were even prohibited from serving (per the "social contract" of that day). We don't allow housing discrimination against them per law & social contract. It seems that your social contract is naught but an excuse to act with caprice but without constitutional limitation.

This is not to put words in your mouth, but to claim ramifications from your position.

It is considered through precendent to be authorized by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. The "right to privacy" is also not menitoned in the Constitution, but it arises out of necessity to protect rights that are. But, that is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that our Judicial System has agreed that the Constitution, through Article 1, Section 8, authorizes the draft.

 

[1robin]

No, that is certainly not the case. And, Hitler did not use evolution in his reasoning, even according to your logic.

He did according to his logic not mine. Now you can say his logical was wrong but there is no way to determine who is right. There is no evolutionary God who can settle the matter. Hitler was taught by a man called Darwin's bulldog (Huxley), and while I think what Hitler did was evil what he did may very well have been consistent with evolution. His idea was to eliminate the weak, so as not burden the strong, thereby making the strong stronger.

The entire idea behind evolution is that it happens naturally and over an extremely long time period. Simply "killing off the weak to benefit the strong" is in no way related to evolution ... 1. it is not natural, 2. it man made and is, in fact, contradicting natural evolution (killing those off that would not have died naturally), and 3. evolution is not a person or animal, so it cannot "do" anything. It is merely an explanation of what has and is happening. Evolution, and other ideas such as this, are man made inventions in that they are "concepts." Thus, to say that a man murdering millions of Jews is merely following the "law of evolution" is without merit and pretty darn absurd, imho.

Hitler's ideas were a product of evolutionary teachings, his methods a product of his mind, his mind a product of evolution. He was taking evolutionary principles and accelerating them. BTW evolution being a long and slow process was over turned. Now we have punctuated equilibrium which is short bursts of change. That is what they call the Cambrian the explosion. Regardless patterning behavior on evolution does not mean sitting and letting evolution do it's thing. If it was no change would occur in anyone's lifetime. It is taking what is true of evolution and basing behaviors on it. If evolution eliminates the weak over time, we eliminate the week over time. How much time is irrelevant, were not trying to duplicate evolution we are trying to pattern our behaviors on it's principles. Actually no one but Hitler is even doing that. It is an idea so bad no society on earth but his ever tried it and his was a disaster.

All in all, using this scientific theory in this way is counterintuitive, as it is personifying something that cannot "act," "choose," "kill," ect. in the way that you mean. Once Hitler took his first action to "inflict" his philosophy on the world, he parted ways with every scientific theory in existence. Your comparison is without merit.

I agree. We don't use it, we should not use it, hopefully we never will use it.

No my analogy is not without merit.

Hitler and Huxley looked at nature. Found it trashed the weak and preserved the strong and it does so at an arbitrary pace that is at times dependent on the intellectual capacity of eh strong. Hitler was no less a product of evolution than the mosquito who transmits yellow fever. Hitler and humans are simply smarter and have a greater capacity to cull out the weak faster that any other creature. BTW I never said he perfectly mirrored evolution, I said he is the closest anyone ever got to basing laws on nature.

 

[leibowde84]

There are times when there is very compelling evidence that the courts rule in against the Constitution, eg, Kelo v New London. (Note that some USSC justices agree with me on this.....just not a majority.) For the government to treat something as legal has the nominal effect of being legal, but is nonetheless illegal. I such cases citizen resistance is warranted. Fighting the draft during the Viet Nam war is one such cause. The war was illegal, the daft was unconstitutional, the soldiers were treated as mere fodder, the US murdered & tortured many innocent non-combatants, & our leaders lacked a desire or plan to even win.

Fair enough. You are welcome to your opinion, as are the minority of judges that agree with you, but, since you do not have any authority to rule on such issues, it does not have any effect. And, just take a minute to realize what "legal" means ... here's a hint:

Legality = "the quality or state of being in accordance with the law."

Now any lawyer will tell you there are two categories of law ... Common Law (case-law) and Statutory Law. Since the Draft is legal according to the law (common law in this instance), it is "legal" according to the definition of the term. Legality is not an objective term, but depends on judicial opinions.

 

[leibowde84]

He did according to his logic not mine. Now you can say his logical was wrong but there is no way to determine who is right. There is no evolutionary God who can settle the matter. Hitler was taught by a man called Darwin's bulldog (Huxley), and while I think what Hitler did was evil what he did may very well have been consistent with evolution. His idea was to eliminate the weak, so as not burden the strong, thereby making the strong stronger.





Hitler's ideas were a product of evolutionary teachings, his methods a product of his mind, his mind a product of evolution. He was taking evolutionary principles and accelerating them. BTW evolution being a long and slow process was over turned. Now we have punctuated equilibrium which is short bursts of change. That is what they call the Cambrian the explosion. Regardless patterning behavior on evolution does not mean sitting and letting evolution do it's thing. If it was no change would occur in anyone's lifetime. It is taking what is true of evolution and basing behaviors on it. If evolution eliminates the weak over time, we eliminate the week over time. How much time is irrelevant, were not trying to duplicate evolution we are trying to pattern our behaviors on it's principles. Actually no one but Hitler is even doing that. It is an idea so bad no society on earth but his ever tried it and his was a disaster.

I agree. We don't use it, we should not use it, hopefully we never will use it.

No my analogy is not without merit.

Hitler and Huxley looked at nature. Found it trashed the weak and preserved the strong and it does so at an arbitrary pace that is at times dependent on the intellectual capacity of eh strong. Hitler was no less a product of evolution than the mosquito who transmits yellow fever. Hitler and humans are simply smarter and have a greater capacity to cull out the weak faster that any other creature. BTW I never said he perfectly mirrored evolution, I said he is the closest anyone ever got to basing laws on nature.

How was the Final Solution "consistent with evolution," a non-personified scientific theory/observation?

 

[Revoltingest]

It is considered through precendent to be authorized by Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. The "right to privacy" is also not menitoned in the Constitution, but it arises out of necessity to protect rights that are. But, that is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that our Judicial System has agreed that the Constitution, through Article 1, Section 8, authorizes the draft.

What portion of text in that section authorizes the military draft?

The Constitution specifically states that we may have additional rights which aren't enumerated. See the 9th Amendment.....
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
But nowhere does it say that we have other obligations or provisions under which we lose our constitutional rights.

 

[1robin]

Where did you get this "out of social fashion" idea?! I'm pretty sure none of us has claimed that this is any kind of measure.

Things that are merely opinions and change over time can easily be referred to as social fashions. Yesterday abortion was totally illegal, tomorrow it is legal before 3 months, legal at any time in pregnancy, the next only before two months. This is not morality this is a social fashion. I am not wrong to circumvent these laws, I am only being unfashionable. It is just a term that accentuates how trivially based most laws are.

the next day Hitler was wrong because he was immensely DESTRUCTIVE toward society. He was destroying it, not just "making it feel bad." When something is destructive to society, it should be stopped. "Wrong" and "right" are merely words. Intent matters quite a bit, as does social justice. Why is an objective morality so important when this can be achieved without one?

Neither destruction nor feeling bad is a moral truth unless God exists. It is merely selfish speciesm. Without God you merely do not prefer them. Any race that denies freedom to another is hypocritical in demanding it for themselves. As long as mankind causes massive suffering and death to creatures juts as valuable (in an evolutionary context) as it's self is also hypocritical and just making up morality by convenience.

Why don't you ask all the leaders of all the nations that fought Hitler? They all used objective right and wrong to justify losing their own lives to stop him. No one appealed to nature, evolution, or subjective preference. I will give you one of the best sources possible. During the Blitz when England was at it's lowest point and were being bombed around the clock. Churchill could have chosen anyone to speak to them. He chose one of the greatest Christian writers in modern times. What he said over the air on the BBC was so profound it was written down and made into one of the top half dozen theological texts ever written. In it (C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity) you will find that actual right and wrong are what can turn a nation being pounded to dust into people who can survive and defeat anything and do so with objective justification.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair enough. You are welcome to your opinion, as are the minority of judges that agree with you, but, since you do not have any authority to rule on such issues, it does not have any effect. And, just take a minute to realize what "legal" means ... here's a hint:

Legality = "the quality or state of being in accordance with the law."

Now any lawyer will tell you there are two categories of law ... Common Law (case-law) and Statutory Law. Since the Draft is legal according to the law (common law in this instance), it is "legal" according to the definition of the term. Legality is not an objective term, but depends on judicial opinions.

When case law & statutory law conflict with the Constitution, there rises a problem. It is a practical necessity that judges must rule, & they will sometimes impose law which is illegal, either due to error or the desire for consistency with stare decisis. But I wager that if another Viet Nam war arose, opposition to the draft would be far stronger, & we could very well see public opinion compel the justices to do the right thing by prohibiting involuntary servitude, & its attendant religious, gender & family status discrimination.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hitler....that scamp is so often a distraction.
He lives on in discussion forums.

Dear fellow denizens,
I have so many alerts stacked up & still coming furiously, particularly in this thread, that I will miss some posts to me. Please remind me if I skip any which matter to you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is the same social contracts that requires you to live under US Law and gives police officers authority.

"Social contract" is a matter of moral rights and obligations, not legal ones.

IMO, any government that attempts to enslave its people (and I include compulsory military service in the category of "slavery") has failed to uphold its side of the social contract, even if it follows whatever legal process it has in place to enact the laws that allow this slavery.

 

[1robin]

Can you prove that these things happened without using the Bible as a source? Because, there is nothing written about Jesus until long after his death (which includes the Gospels). To say that "even his enemies claimed to see him post mortem," cannot be true (unless you are referring to Paul, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were not) unless you know of another source. For, in the Bible, it would merely be heresay.

I have never seen a person claim to be a Christian who was so hostile to the very core of Christianity.

1. I have no burden to not use the bible. You can't invent criteria. That is about the surest sign of a hostile bias possible. The bible is so reliable it is a primary archeological text used by even secular archeologists. You might as well say evolutionists can be used to defend evolution. Your dismissing the authors who had by far the greatest possible access to the fact of the matter. You not only do not believe the bible, you don't want to.
2. NT historians use all sorts of materials including the bible (you can even use historical probabilistic calculus), and regardless of what their faith is the consensus view is what I said it was. They are the best in the world at resolving the bibles historical claims and agree those four claims (among many more) are as reliable as history can make them. It was not my claim, it was theirs.
3. Paul was the most committed enemy of Christ possible. Why would I not be referring to him? Or I should say why were not the NT historians referring to him? Your standard seems to be we can trust anything except the best sources and those that are inconvenient for you. You do not seem to get I am not saying what I have concluded. Those four historical events are what NT historians agree are reliable.

 

[leibowde84]

What portion of text in that section authorizes the military draft?

The Constitution specifically states that we may have additional rights which aren't enumerated. See the 9th Amendment.....
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
But nowhere does it say that we have other obligations or provisions under which we lose our constitutional rights.

All you have to do is read the case-law that I provided the link to. I

When case law & statutory law conflict with the Constitution, there rises a problem. It is a practical necessity that judges must rule, & they will sometimes impose law which is illegal, either due to error or the desire for consistency with stare decisis. But I wager that if another Viet Nam war arose, opposition to the draft would be far stronger, & we could very well see public opinion compel the justices to do the right thing by prohibiting involuntary servitude, & its attendant religious, gender & family status discrimination.

I've got to say, the best lawyers in the country have tried to argue your point, but failed to succeed in showing that the Draft is unconstitutional. I understand your sentiment, but it seems that you face an uphill battle. All I am explaining is how the law is currently seen.

 

[leibowde84]

When case law & statutory law conflict with the Constitution, there rises a problem. It is a practical necessity that judges must rule, & they will sometimes impose law which is illegal, either due to error or the desire for consistency with stare decisis. But I wager that if another Viet Nam war arose, opposition to the draft would be far stronger, & we could very well see public opinion compel the justices to do the right thing by prohibiting involuntary servitude, & its attendant religious, gender & family status discrimination.

But, in the interest of staying on the topic of bodily autonomy as it relates to a woman's right to choose, I think we should agree to disagree.