The amendment process is there for things that the framers didn't consider. Without an amendment I don't think that the federal government should be involved on any level.
Dana wrote: > But does the search need to be physical? I would feel violated if I > had to go to court to explain why I want an abortion. Personally. It's > something the writers of the constitution did not consider because > women just quietly took care of these things themselves at the time, > and sometimes died over it. > > Note: I am not in favor of late-term abortion or any abortion really. > I just feel that outlawing it is worse. > > On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:54 PM, 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:272364 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
