Lachean

Don't just quote it to me without explanation, none of that says that you have a right to not be killed.

__________________
"Truth, in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." - Oscar Wilde

prometeus

Irelevant, read the bold part which refers to the entire thing.

Why do you suppse that "other" rights were enumerated, yet "the most important one" was not?

Now read my OP and see why this does not apply.

prometeus

I do not know, what if? The point is that we are debating what is or should be. The past can not be changed, but learned from.

I have no problem with that, people who do not want abortions on moral grounds should not getr one and on the same moral grounds should stay out of other people's lives and not lobby to change laws based on their morality.

prometeus

Laws, today, are a matter of practicality not morality, especially in a pluralistic society such as the US.
The founding father knew very well that some rights are nothing more that ideal to aspire to. A right to life could not be declared, then proceed to kill others, because they did not like the status quo.

Ethereal

Yes, they do. And even if the fifth and fourteenth Amendements could be construed in such a manner it wouldn't matter as the ninth Amendment precludes any argument wherein the absence of an explicit right denotes its nonsexistance. I find it laughable that anyone could contest the right to life when it is not only made quite explicit by the Constitution but it is also codified in criminal law. Why, do you suppose, there is a law against murder?

Also, rights are not merely a legal concept, the Founding Fathers made it quite clear that rights were also a matter of natural law in the Declaration of Independence. The right to life is inherent and self-evident to all individuals. So, even if you could prove that the right to life is not a legally valid concept (which you cannot), you would have a considerably more difficult time arguing against it as a philosophical or moral concept.

Let's see what this video has to say about it...



I do not know what you mean. The language is quite clear, "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

It was enumerated. It's enshrined within the fifth and fourteenth Amendments. Furthermore, even it weren't it would be immaterial to the nature of the argument as the ninth Amendment precludes your entire argument.

So, you agree, the fourteenth Amendment espouses a right to life?

prometeus

I find it also laughable that you choose to so blatantly misconstrue the Constitution. Explicit is the right to free speech, to practice religion and so on as EXPLICITLY enumerated in the First Amendment. There is nothing explicit ANYWHERE about a right to life. If you would have understood the Preamble to the Constitution, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..." you would know why there are laws against murder.

But I just did, you on the other hand did not prove your assertion.
Not any more that you have in trying to argue for it.

And therein lies the problem, it refers to indictments for crimes and punishment for crimes.

Quote it.

NO, IT DOES NOT.

Lachean

We derive our rights from the constitution, not the DoI. I do not doubt that the founders believed in a right to life, because I do as well, its simply not a right in our constitution. No where does the constitution explicitly state that we have such a right.

As for criminal law, the punishment is for murder which is an unlawful killing, there is no punishment for killings themselves; it depends on the circumstances.

Also I do not believe in rights by natural law, I believe the only rights we have are the ones that we fight for, and that we can appeal to in a court of law. If natural law is the premise, then we have rights that this government does not recognize (or does not any longer), and that the constitution makes no mention of.

So long as there is a right to self defense, one has the right to kill under certain circumstances.

I happen to love and agree with that video wholeheartedly.

Ethereal

Disagreement without logic does not an argument make. 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.

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 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.

It also refers to life, liberty, and property.

I have, twice. Also, 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.

Then why would it make an explicit mention of life, liberty, and property? The fifth and fourteenth amendments could affirm the right to due process without making an explicit mention of life, liberty, and property, so what's the point if not to establish a positive right? Do you actually think the Founding Fathers would have affirmed the primacy of natural law without affording it legal validity? You must take them for idiots.

Ethereal

The fifth and forteenth amendments explicitly state that our right to life, liberty, and property is protected by our right to due process. If you are arguing that the interpretation of those amendments must be limited to due process alone then there would be no reason for said amendments to make mention of life, liberty, or property.

What's your point?

Hence the ninth amendment. Even if you can make the argument that there exists no explicit or positive right to life, you cannot make the argument it is not an implicit right. The ninth amendment is quite clear and it precludes your entire premise.

If one were to use your logic, then there is no such thing as a right to self defense, as it is not positively or explicitly affirmed in the Constitution.

prometeus

Indeed, and you so far are stubbornly avoiding using any.
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.

If you did you'd know why you are mistaken.

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.

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.