Their is a need to defend the life of the child involved, with science we now know that long before birth the child is alive, feeling. Someone needs to write legislation that protects that life, the federal government should be prohibited from legislating on this issue because it is not a power specifically enumerated to it.
It's not a sham argument. You are dealing with the rights of 2 individuals, the law/government then needs to be involved. Because of our form of government, I think it needs to be at state level. Judah McAuley wrote: > The state has no more right to infringe on inherent personal rights > than the federal government. The level of government is arbitrary. > Privacy, being secure in your person and the right to control your own > body is fundamental. The state has no more right than the federal > government. Your argument is a sham. > > Judah > > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Secure from unreasonable search is how the amendment is worded and you >> know that. >> >> Removed I mean that if possible an attempt should still be made to >> salvage the babies life, it's incredible how young a premature child can >> survive today, and three to four months in not unusual anymore. >> >> I still say that these standards need to be set, that abortions do need >> to be available, that they should be set by the medical community at the >> state level. >> >> Dana wrote: >>> don't think I understand this answer (removed?) and I don't think >>> first trimester is necessarily the right place to draw your line. But >>> I don't want to do the research to argue the point. There is a line, >>> and it is somewhere well before the third trimester and probably not >>> *too* far from the end of the first, right? Leave it at that for the >>> purposes of this discussion. >>> >>> But taking a step back, why would it be a security of the person issue >>> in the second and not in the third? My answer is that it still is, but >>> the baby's right to not be killed is more urgent and important than >>> the mother's right not be messed with. I am not sure about yours. >>> >>> So in the third trimester, there is a legitimate reason for government >>> -- to balance those competing rights if necessary -- except that when >>> we have competing rights to stay alive, it is again not something >>> anyone else should be deciding. The last point especially seems clear >>> enough if your look at it from a libertarian point of view. >>> >>> Bottom line though is that this is indeed a question of being secure >>> in one's person, both the mother's and the baby's. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Only in the case that it is proven to be a health concern for the >>>> mother, and then the baby should be removed from the mother if it's past >>>> the 1st trimester. >>>> >>>> Dana wrote: >>>>> you don't think that being told you can't have an abortion affects the >>>>> security of a woman's person? I do disagree with you in that case. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> Take it further, I'm not talking about the right to privacy, I'm talking >>>>>> about the right to have an abortion. Privacy from government in my view >>>>>> is covered in the ability to be secure in your person from search and >>>>>> seizure, to make sure no one is looking your windows or listening to >>>>>> your conversations without a warrant, it's completely unrelated. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only abortion argument I think that makes sense is at what point do >>>>>> the cells and blood become a human being. >>>>>> >>>>>> Judah McAuley wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>> It's also why there is an amendment process. >>>>>>> To paraphrase a founding father when debating the wisdom of laying out >>>>>>> the Bill of Rights: "If you go enumerating a list of rights that >>>>>>> people have, some dumb ass in the future is going think we meant those >>>>>>> are the *only* ones they have." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no right to privacy specifically enumerated in the >>>>>>> Constitution. That is because it falls under this quaint little notion >>>>>>> that the Founders had read up on called Natural Law. The Constitution >>>>>>> lays out the limitations and powers of the Government, not of the >>>>>>> people. I know what the 10th Amendment says and there are a whole lot >>>>>>> of people seem to think that all rights not explicitly given to the >>>>>>> Federal government get caught up in the nebulous net of "the State" >>>>>>> and that few if any filter down to the individual. Well fuck that >>>>>>> noise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Judah >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:272363 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
