W:276]14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:

I personally view the whole "domain over body" thing as selfish.

Click to expand...

You're essentially arguing for pro-choice. Men and the government having "domain over women's bodies" is selfish.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:

1.) Thank you for the questions, I do appreciate your reply. However, we need to stay on point and keep this in the framework of the constitution. I will not respond again for any further clarification, so hopefully this answers most of your questions.
2.) The rights of the unborn? They have the right to be aborted, that's for sure. Although, if we flip roles, that's not a "right" that's definite suppression, the unborn baby might as well have been born into communism. No, subhuman fetuses do not have the right to LIFE so clearly stated in our declaration of independence. Unborn babies have the right to be exploited by abortion clinics?! Their body parts sold to the highest bidder. They have the right to be thrown out like ordinary trash?
3.) What does ZEF stand for? Seems like just another dehumanizing term to me.
4.) Another cold blooded term ascribed by cold blooded people, if you will.
5.) An abortionist Enthusiast, as far as I am concerned, is anyone who advocates strongly and diligently for positive promotion, for the practices of abortion, the procedures of abortion, for the morality of abortion, for the so called "positive" impact abortion has on the community, for the so called positive impact abortion has on society, for the general furtherment of abortion and abortion rights, and one who advocates strongly for the advancement of these said rights under any and all circumstances, and one who holds a blatant disregard for the life of the unborn baby (and that last part, obviously, goes without saying)
6.) As for the term "sub-human" yes, I have heard it used in multiple abortion contexts, so I think it accurately describes these so called "Abortionist Enthusiasts" point of view or their general perspective on a dead fetus / dying fetus / live fetus. And the perspective of many who support abortion, in general. The fetus is considered sub human.
7.) An offense to God is any matter of sin. There are small offenses and there are large offenses. i.e. There are varying degrees of sin. Just like there are varying degrees of criminal offenses. Same idea, just a higher court. I can assure you, you do not want to be an accessory to murder in Gods court.
8.) You say you will stick to protecting the rights of women and you almost sound like they are under attack?
9.) Like the miracle of birth, is actually some type of insidious poison that invades the mothers body, like the fetus is almost... well, subhuman.
10.) You are failing to identify the miracle of birth and also fail to identify the sanctity of life.
11.) Thanks for your time and have a great rest of your day. Lets please get back to the Constitutional argument. Thank you!!!

Click to expand...

1.) lol uh huh
2.) ill aks you again, what rights of the unborn are you talking about . . please list them, thanks
3.) well it seems you would be factually wrong like many other times like when you claimed abortion is equal to murder. ZEF is a medical acronym that means Zygote, Embryo and Fetus the three stages of the unborn that are all HUMAN therefore factually not dehumanizing in anyway
4.) tell that to the millions of people that use it including doctors and scientist
5.) oh so its made up BS along with your false claim of subhuman, got it . . hilarious
6.) didnt ask YOU if YOU heard it i asked you to link people here using it, ive never read it here until you posted it. Seems its another thing you got caught making up
7.) again YOUR subjective opinion of YOUR god which is meaningless to laws and rights of this country and you know . . .the framework of the constitution
8.) under attack . . .that might be to strong of wording. I mean people are trying to infringe on them but they arent having much success and the reality is they will never win but that doesnt mean i wont continue to protect them like all our rights.
9.) who said that? ooops another failed strawman and made up lie
10.) not at all because its not involved in the discussion nor is your subjective opinion of it relevant again to laws and rights of this country and you know . . .the framework of the constitution
11.) you make no rules around here

i notice you DODGED the question that deal with that anyway, ill ask them AGAIN. You brought up right to life, i asked you what about the woman's right to life. You cant give them both them equal right to life, its factually impossible. One will always lose so how do you support your stance of claiming right to life.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:

I personally view the whole "domain over body" thing as selfish. There is a race of people here, women are apart of something much bigger than just themselves. The procreation of the species has no bearing on your opinion here? There are things women cannot do with their body, and its not the end of the world. Prostitution, for example, is an activity that is illegal for women to participate in. There is a certain human protocol and within that protocol is the miracle of birth. Birth is a natural part of life. It should be protected and honored. Not desecrated and despised. As far as I am concerned. But I appreciate your opinion, it is valued!

EDIT: IM getting off track again. Lets try to stay on point with the 14th amendment legal discussion.

Click to expand...

Women aren't chattel, IM. Regardless of anyone's personal opinion, none of us has any business telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. I hate to equate the two, but so far as I'm concerned, the same principle ought to apply for prostitution as well. My main concern there is that women may be forced into the practice through sexual slavery or similar means. But if a woman wants to become a prostitute of her own volition, then what what right does society have to deny her that freedom? At least when and where it's legal and regulated - in specially zoned red-light districts, for example - there are usually some safeguards for their safety.

Regardless, as you say, neither of our personal opinions are relevant to the legal debate.

Let's take a closer look at the 14th Amendment... a person may become a citizen by being born or naturalized in the US. Is there any class of person who can be denied citizenship without due process of law?

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

AProudLefty said:

You're essentially arguing for pro-choice. Men and the government having "domain over women's bodies" is selfish.

Click to expand...

I think you are failing to see the sanctity of life and the miracle of birth. In any event, this isn't an issue of sexism. Obviously, if we view the fetus as an "intrusion" in the female body, there are much larger theological and philosophical problems going on. Anyway, I do thank you for your comment your opinion you are more than entitled to stand up for what you believe is "right" and "ethical".

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Cordelier said:

Women aren't chattel, IM. Regardless of anyone's personal opinion, none of us has any business telling a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. I hate to equate the two, but so far as I'm concerned, the same principle ought to apply for prostitution as well. My main concern there is that women may be forced into the practice through sexual slavery or similar means. But if a woman wants to become a prostitute of her own volition, then what what right does society have to deny her that freedom? At least when and where it's legal and regulated - in specially zoned red-light districts, for example - there are usually some safeguards for their safety.

Regardless, as you say, neither of our personal opinions are relevant to the legal debate.

Let's take a closer look at the 14th Amendment... a person may become a citizen by being born or naturalized in the US. Is there any class of person who can be denied citizenship without due process of law?

Click to expand...

Thank you, lets just focus on the legal debate. Sometimes these kinds of threads are difficult to keep on track.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:

I think you are failing to see the sanctity of life and the miracle of birth. In any event, this isn't an issue of sexism. Obviously, if we view the fetus as an "intrusion" in the female body, there are much larger theological and philosophical problems going on. Anyway, I do thank you for your comment your opinion you are more than entitled to stand up for what you believe is "right" and "ethical".

Click to expand...

Please do not falsely accuse me. I do see the sanctity of life and the miracle of birth. I've watched my son get born. And sexism has nothing to do with it. Men have as much right to their bodies as women.
"Intrusion"? You're talking about the rape case?

As regards to the 14th Amendment, you'll have to establish personhood.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

AProudLefty said:

Please do not falsely accuse me. I do see the sanctity of life and the miracle of birth. I've watched my son get born. And sexism has nothing to do with it. Men have as much right to their bodies as women.
"Intrusion"? You're talking about the rape case?

As regards to the 14th Amendment, you'll have to establish personhood.

Click to expand...

Okay, sorry, didn't mean to offend you. Just implied, that's all. As for one question, seeing your son get born, that must have been a remarkable experience for you. Now how could you ever want to change or diminish that (experience) through something like abortion?

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:

Do you guys agree or disagree with the Supreme Court Ruling on Roe V Wade? ON A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS ONLY - I dont want this to evolve into a pro life or pro choice debate, I want to keep the discussion in line and framed from a purely consitutional perspective.

I want to see support for the decision in favor of this ruling OR support for the dissenting opinion. Please provide background and personal opinion and why you agree or disagree. The SCOTUS RULED 7-2 in favor of Roe in 1973.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Click to expand...

It's been quite a long time since I actually read the opinions the SC gave in this case. As someone who is not a lawyer I can only put forth my personal opinion without legalese. I scratch my head wondering how in the hell someone intelligent as supposedly the SC justices are could possibly construe the meaning of the 14th providing the right to an abortion. Unless you consider a fetus a part of your body (like a kidney, lung etc.) I don't get it.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:

Thank you, lets just focus on the legal debate. Sometimes these kinds of threads are difficult to keep on track.

Click to expand...

Case in point... I'll ask the question again: Let's take a closer look at the 14th Amendment... a person may become a citizen by being born or naturalized in the US. Is there any class of person who can be denied citizenship without due process of law?

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:

Okay, sorry, didn't mean to offend you. Just implied, that's all. As for one question, seeing your son get born, that must have been a remarkable experience for you. Now how could you ever want to change or diminish that (experience) through something like abortion?

Click to expand...

Nah. Not offended. Just because one is pro-choice doesn't diminish their view of life. Not controlling women's bodies does not diminish my experience. Now back to the 14th Amendment, you need to prove the personhood.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:

Okay, sorry, didn't mean to offend you. Just implied, that's all. As for one question, seeing your son get born, that must have been a remarkable experience for you. Now how could you ever want to change or diminish that (experience) through something like abortion?

Click to expand...

Dear God, man... leave the birth of his son out of this - it neither changes or diminishes his experience one way or the other. Even suggesting that it ever possibly could is deeply insulting to me... let alone him. Some ground you just ought not to tread on.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Cordelier said:

Dear God, man... leave the birth of his son out of this - it neither changes or diminishes his experience one way or the other. Even suggesting that it ever possibly could is deeply insulting to me... let alone him. Some ground you just ought not to tread on.

Click to expand...

Do you have anything constructive to add to the debate? we've moved past these issues. And I do value your opinion, even if we stand at opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I wanted to include the entire text... this is the full dissenting opinion on Roe V Wade

Roe v. Wade

MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.
The Court's opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact and a wealth of legal scholarship. While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement with those parts of it that invalidate the Texas statute in question, and therefore dissent.

The Court's opinion decides that a State may impose virtually no restriction on the performance of abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. Our previous decisions indicate that a necessary predicate for such an opinion is a plaintiff who was in her first trimester of pregnancy at some time during the pendency of her law-suit. While a party may vindicate his own constitutional rights, he may not seek vindication for the rights of others. Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). The Court's statement of facts in this case makes clear, however, that the record in no way indicates the presence of such a plaintiff. We know only that plaintiff Roe at the time of filing her complaint was a pregnant woman; for aught that appears in this record, she may have been in her last trimester of pregnancy as of the date the complaint was filed.
Nothing in the Court's opinion indicates that Texas might not constitutionally apply its proscription of abortion as written to a woman in that stage of pregnancy. Nonetheless, the Court uses her complaint against the Texas statute as a fulcrum for deciding that States may [410 U.S. 113, 172] impose virtually no restrictions on medical abortions performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. In deciding such a hypothetical lawsuit, the Court departs from the longstanding admonition that it should never "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied." Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885). See also Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 345 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
II
Even if there were a plaintiff in this case capable of litigating the issue which the Court decides, I would reach a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Court. I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not "private" in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the "privacy" that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
If the Court means by the term "privacy" no more than that the claim of a person to be free from unwanted state regulation of consensual transactions may be a form of "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no doubt that similar claims have been upheld in our earlier decisions on the basis of that liberty. I agree with the statement of MR. JUSTICE STEWART in his concurring opinion that the "liberty," against deprivation of which without due process the Fourteenth [410 U.S. 113, 173] Amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 491 (1955). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this. If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother's life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that such a statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective under the test stated in Williamson, supra. But the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

The Court eschews the history of the Fourteenth Amendment in its reliance on the "compelling state interest" test. See Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 179 (1972) (dissenting opinion). But the Court adds a new wrinkle to this test by transposing it from the legal considerations associated with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to this case arising under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Unless I misapprehend the consequences of this transplanting of the "compelling state interest test," the Court's opinion will accomplish the seemingly impossible feat of leaving this area of the law more confused than it found it. [410 U.S. 113, 174]
While the Court's opinion quotes from the dissent of Mr. Justice Holmes in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74 (1905), the result it reaches is more closely attuned to the majority opinion of Mr. Justice Peckham in that case. As in Lochner and similar cases applying substantive due process standards to economic and social welfare legislation, the adoption of the compelling state interest standard will inevitably require this Court to examine the legislative policies and pass on the wisdom of these policies in the very process of deciding whether a particular state interest put forward may or may not be "compelling." The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental," Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when society's views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the "right" to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 22, 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth [410 U.S. 113, 175] Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. 1 While many States have amended or updated [410 U.S. 113, 176] their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. 2 Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 [410 U.S. 113, 177] and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante, at 119.
There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.
III
Even if one were to agree that the case that the Court decides were here, and that the enunciation of the substantive constitutional law in the Court's opinion were proper, the actual disposition of the case by the Court is still difficult to justify. The Texas statute is struck down in toto, even though the Court apparently concedes that at later periods of pregnancy Texas might impose these selfsame statutory limitations on abortion. My understanding of past practice is that a statute found [410 U.S. 113, 178] to be invalid as applied to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole, is not simply "struck down" but is, instead, declared unconstitutional as applied to the fact situation before the Court. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Street New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969).

For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent

Questions to Consider

What are Justice Rehnquist’s reasons for disagreeing with the right to privacy that is recognized in the majority opinion?

What kind of abortion law would Justice Rehnquist agree is unconstitutional?

Justice Rehnquist argues that the drafters of the 14th Amendment did not intend for the rights to be extended to include abortion. Do you think he is correct? Should a right only be recognized if it was intended by the original drafters of the Constitution or the amendments? Explain your answer.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:

Do you have anything constructive to add to the debate? we've moved past these issues. And I do value your opinion, even if we stand at opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Click to expand...

Truth be told, Merc, I'm still waiting for you to add something constructive to the debate. I have yet to see you make a legal case as to how or why the 14th Amendment even remotely supports your argument.

The 14th Amendment clearly doesn't withhold citizenship from any class of person without due process of law... and yet there is no avenue for a fetus to become a citizen until it is born. The only logical inference from these two facts is that a fetus cannot be a person.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Cordelier said:

Case in point... I'll ask the question again: Let's take a closer look at the 14th Amendment... a person may become a citizen by being born or naturalized in the US. Is there any class of person who can be denied citizenship without due process of law?

Click to expand...

I would have to say the case should have been thrown out because no party in the case was currently in her first trimester of pregnancy.

As to answer your question:

This passage has no obvious or even subtle connection to legalized abortion (in fact, abortion laws were being tightened in the 19th century when the amendment passed). No matter. According to Blackmun, abortion is so central to liberty that no restriction on it can stand constitutional scrutiny.
He is at pains to deny that unborn children are “persons in the whole sense.” As evidence, he points to clauses in the Constitution about persons that don’t have “prenatal application,” e.g., the requirement that persons must be 35 or older to run for president.
This is too incredible for words. Just because clauses like this refer to adults doesn’t mean that minors, or unborn children, don’t have rights.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment."

Irrelevant - just because a right is unrecognized and/or unenumerated does not mean it can be denied or disparaged (see the 9th Amendment). Was it not the original intent of the drafters of the Bill of Rights that this be so?

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:

I would have to say the case should have been thrown out because no party in the case was currently in her first trimester of pregnancy.

As to answer your question:

This passage has no obvious or even subtle connection to legalized abortion (in fact, abortion laws were being tightened in the 19th century when the amendment passed). No matter. According to Blackmun, abortion is so central to liberty that no restriction on it can stand constitutional scrutiny.
He is at pains to deny that unborn children are “persons in the whole sense.” As evidence, he points to clauses in the Constitution about persons that don’t have “prenatal application,” e.g., the requirement that persons must be 35 or older to run for president.
This is too incredible for words. Just because clauses like this refer to adults doesn’t mean that minors, or unborn children, don’t have rights.

Click to expand...

It's deductive reasoning:
1. No person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
2. There is no class of person that is automatically denied the possibility of citizenship.
3. There is no way for a fetus to become a citizen until it is born and ceases to become a fetus.

All three statements are factual and are not mutually exclusive, therefore all must be equally and concurrently valid. The only logical conclusion from this is that a fetus cannot legally be considered a person. The only way I can see to possibly get around this is to change the law of naturalization to allow for a fetus to become a naturalized citizen. How about it? You ready to cross the "anchor fetus" bridge?

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Iron_Merc said:

I would have to say the case should have been thrown out because no party in the case was currently in her first trimester of pregnancy.

As to answer your question:

This passage has no obvious or even subtle connection to legalized abortion (in fact, abortion laws were being tightened in the 19th century when the amendment passed). No matter. According to Blackmun, abortion is so central to liberty that no restriction on it can stand constitutional scrutiny.
He is at pains to deny that unborn children are “persons in the whole sense.” As evidence, he points to clauses in the Constitution about persons that don’t have “prenatal application,” e.g., the requirement that persons must be 35 or older to run for president.
This is too incredible for words. Just because clauses like this refer to adults doesn’t mean that minors, or unborn children, don’t have rights.

Click to expand...

The mootness argument doesn't hold water - see Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 US 498 (1911). "Capable of reptition, but evading review" standard.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

soylentgreen said:

The key word there is " born". A fetus is not born. A woman coming to an age of being able to birth a child has been born and has rights. That which grows within her has no such rights.

Click to expand...

Clearly according to Virginia's governor, it has no rights even after it's born.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

MrWonka said:

Yes, there is no realistic way to enforce a ban on early term abortions without obliterating the basic human rights of all women. Not just the women who want abortions, ALL women. Most women don't even show that they're really pregnant until they're at least half way through their pregnancy. So how would the police even know that a woman was pregnant in the first place without performing an illegal search? That makes stop and frisk look like a joy ride.

Click to expand...

Just remember, you're a man; you have no right to even have an opinion about this, much less speak. :lol:

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

American said:

Just remember, you're a man; you have no right to even have an opinion about this, much less speak. :lol:

Click to expand...

We're at least allowed to say: "Yes dear."

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I agree with the Roe ruling because of the Ninth Amendment. A woman has right to do what she wants with her body, an unenumerated right discovered by the Roe decision.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

American said:

Just remember, you're a man; you have no right to even have an opinion about this, much less speak.

Click to expand...

No, you see I'm on the women's side of this argument. I have to speak because the misogynist scum that want to ban abortion don't actually listen to women.

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

MrWonka said:

Yes, there is no realistic way to enforce a ban on early term abortions without obliterating the basic human rights of all women. Not just the women who want abortions, ALL women. Most women don't even show that they're really pregnant until they're at least half way through their pregnancy. So how would the police even know that a woman was pregnant in the first place without performing an illegal search? That makes stop and frisk look like a joy ride.

Click to expand...

Great points here. Its a can of worms is it not?