an amendment will not be proposed any time soon, since the equal rights amendment shamefully failed
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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:272370 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
