Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethereal  Disagreement without logic does not an argument make. |
Indeed, and you so far are stubbornly avoiding using any.
Quote:
|
I have provided two explicit instances in which the Constitution affirms a right to life, which is protected by our right to due process, you have yet to provide a logical reason why one should not interpret those Amendments in such a way.
|
You did not such thing, but misinterpret the Constitution to your liking. There is nothing to support your interpretation, but if you are so sure why don't you provide some instance where a judge, any judge has made a ruling that supports your position.
It is quite elementary interpretation of a sentence, that the main subject is what governs the meaning of it. Do yourself a favor and ask anyone, or look up on line any reference to the Constitution and you will find that you are mistaken.
Quote:
|
If you understood the concept of natural law you would understand why the Founding Fathers wouldn't have been stupid enough to affirm its existence without providing it legal protection as well.
|
If you did you'd know why you are mistaken.
Quote:
|
If you wish to contest the philosophical validity of natural law please inform me. Just remember, the most brilliant American philosophers in history are on my side.
|
But legal scholars are not, and since it is the legal status of abortions that is at issue, lets stick with the legal aspect. If you wish to debate merit of philosophies, start a thread in the philosophy section and we will have a go at it.
Quote:
|
...your entire argument is moot given the nature of the ninth amendment. You can argue against the wording of the fifth and forteenth amendments all day, but you will never get around the ninth amendment, sorry.
|
Even in this case you are mistaken, because if that were the criteria and since no priority is assigned to the rights implied, women can claim their right to abortion by the same amendment. I do not think they will ask you to rule on the priority.