Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

clark · 2005-07-19 12:29:50

The court decision in effect created a "right to abortion" that had never existed before.

"In effect"? It can be portrayed that way, but usually through the gross manipulation of facts and misunderstanding of the issues involved.

It didn't create a right, it limited the authority of the government. Remember, all unlisted "rights" belong to the people, not the government.

People abuse the facts to fit their particular agenda, and a lot of people end up paying the consquences for some other persons idea of how the world should work.

This conversation is no different than if we argued over wether or not a woman has a right to "not" wear a veil if she so chooses. You would think that inane. So is the discussion about a womans right to choose. There is no discussion because it shouldn't be open for debate.

It is their life, their body, their right. To even suggest that the government can restrict that, or that women need a special law approved by everybody else to codify this natural right is simply offensive.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 12:41:34

<sigh> It's like trying to explain relativity to a parrot.

"In effect"? It can be portrayed that way, but usually through the gross manipulation of facts and misunderstanding of the issues involved.

I hear you clark, and on a legal basis I essentially agree. But the vast bulk of the country doesn't see it that way. They see it as Roe vs. Wade created abortion, hence the current conflict over it.

I thought someone who is on record saying that Bush was selected by the Supreme Court would understand that distinction when flipped to the other side.

It is their life, their body, their right. To even suggest that the government can restrict that, or that women need a special law approved by everybody else to codify this natural right is simply offensive.

This does bring up two other issues. First, can any medical process truly be called "natural?" Abortion is not a "natural right" by any stretch of the imagination. That's not to say I oppose it, but your classification of it is screwy.

Second, there is a very real question of when that fetus ceases to be "a woman's body" and becomes it's own entity deserving of legal protection. I don't pretend to have an answer to this but it can't be brushed aside either. Some say it starts at conception, I don't agree that a few cells equal a human being. Others argue that anything before the moment of birth is fair game. I don't agree. If you can kill a baby an hour before birth why not an hour after? Or a month? Or anytime before it's 18?

Problem is, these things were never resolved. The discussion wasn't even had in any meaningful sense.

Another familiar clark refrain if I recall.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1121798872

BWhite · 2005-07-19 12:56:11

Forget Roe v Wade

Lets chat about http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/]Griswold - - if there is NO right to privacy as Cobra says, can state's outlaw contraception?

Imagine Texas decides birth control pills are illegal.

A woman changes planes in Dallas-Forth Worth and gets arrested for having pills in her luggage.

Outlandish? Okay, Justice Cobra, defend Griswold and reject Roe. How?

Facts of the Case
Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
Question Presented
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Conclusion
Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.

No right to privacy? Griswold falls and states become free to outlaw birth control.

Edited By BWhite on 1121799522

clark · 2005-07-19 12:59:29

<sigh> It's like trying to explain relativity to a parrot.

<sigh> it's like being taught by a chimp.

But the vast bulk of the country doesn't see it that way. They see it as Roe vs. Wade created abortion, hence the current conflict over it.

The vast bulk of the country can't find Iraq on a map. Stupid sheeple. But if you want to inject "perception" into the discussion, fine by me. We will make a liberal of you yet.

If the government can limit the rights of a woman and how she is able to make choices affecting her body, why stop with just abortion? Why not determine what they can and cannot wear, what jobs they can and cannot have?

We already have such laws to varying degrees, considering women cannot walk outside without a shirt, but men may. Women may not enter into combat jobs within the military. So obviously, based on mere perception here, while we think ourselves more progressive than some fundie veil wearing muslims, we're no different.

We have certain expectations that women must conform to, right? Maybe our way is a bit more liberal in comparison, but the fundamental structure is the same. So, why not limit the rights of women even further? Should they really be allowed to make certain kinds of decisions that affect their body?

That's why we need the government, right? To tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. There's your "perception". There is your debate.

I thought someone who is on recorded saying that Bush was selected by the Supreme Court would understand that distinction when flipped to the other side.

The difference being that the SUpreme Court didn't have to weigh in on the election. The role of the SUpreme court is to keep the legislative and executive branch in check. Not to pick the next president of the United States.

Abortion is not a "natural right" by any stretch of the imagination. That's not to say I oppose it, but your classification of it is screwy.

Control over your own body is a fundamental natural right. If it isn't, then we can assume all manner of "screwy" things- liek the government forcing mandaory organ donation. Or taking your extra kidney while still in use. Forced egg and sperm donation.

But if you prefer, it isn't a right, but the government is not granted the "power" to limit us in this respect.

Second, there is a very real question of when that fetus ceases to be "a woman's body" and becomes it's own entity deserving of legal protection.

If it can survive outside the womb, you have a case. Otherwise it is akin to the siamese twins that get seperated. One invariably dies in the process- did the doctors just commit murder?

Is there an obligation to sacrifice yourself so another may live? That is in effect what pregnancy is. A sacrifice so another may live. Are you obligated to do so? Can society demand that you be obligated? Or better yet, can society demand that this obligation be only required by one gender?

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 13:02:16

Outlandish? Okay, Justice Cobra, defend Griswold and reject Roe. How?

I'm not rejecting Roe! <throws hands up in exasperation>

But on a practical level, it isn't hard to draw a legal distinction between contraception and abortion, they aren't the same thing.

clark · 2005-07-19 13:06:26

But on a practical level, it isn't hard to draw a legal distinction between contraception and abortion, they aren't the same thing.

That would be why the Right is so supportive of sex education that includes information about contraception.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 13:10:15

Outlandish? Okay, Justice Cobra, defend Griswold and reject Roe. How?
I'm not rejecting Roe! <throws hands up in exasperation>
But on a practical level, it isn't hard to draw a legal distinction between contraception and abortion, they aren't the same thing.

On a practical level, you are correct.

But now, find a LEGAL basis to prohibit states from outlawing contraception without a "right to privacy" drawn from the penumbra (reading between the lines) of the Constitution.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 13:12:32

The vast bulk of the country can't find Iraq on a map. Stupid sheeple.

I'll remember that next time you go on about how things are "supposed" to be in a democracy.

The difference being that the SUpreme Court didn't have to weigh in on the election. The role of the SUpreme court is to keep the legislative and executive branch in check. Not to pick the next president of the United States.

And you've fallen for that "perception" thing. In one case you argue strict legal points, in the other you discard them. Further argument is pointless.

That would be why the Right is so supportive of sex education that includes information about contraception.

No, that would be because many on the religious Right are prudes who think sex before marriage is evil.

You're not honestly trying to lump abortion and contraception into the same camp are you?

In any case, using up all your anti-Right abortion arguments on me is a waste, it's like trying to convince your priest that there is a God.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 13:18:46

But now, find a LEGAL basis to prohibit states from outlawing contraception without a "right to privacy" drawn from the penumbra (reading between the lines) of the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't bestow rights but rather creates specific government powers. Nowhere does it grant authority for government to restrict contraception. Therefore, nothing more is needed. If that isn't enough, any birth control drug or device is property. Constitutionally the government doesn't have the authority to take it without due process. If the Constitution doesn't grant authority to restrict contraception, no law can be made doing so, hence no due process way to confiscate those items.

Abortion on the other hand, being mired in the uncertainty of when a fetus becomes a legal entity would still be open for debate.

No inferred right to privacy needed.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 13:26:12

But now, find a LEGAL basis to prohibit states from outlawing contraception without a "right to privacy" drawn from the penumbra (reading between the lines) of the Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't bestow rights but rather creates specific government powers. Nowhere does it grant authority for government to restrict contraception. Therefore, nothing more is needed. If that isn't enough, any birth control drug or device is property. Constitutionally the government doesn't have the authority to take it without due process. If the Constitution doesn't grant authority to restrict contraception, no law can be made doing so, hence no due process way to confiscate those items.
Abortion on the other hand, being mired in the uncertainty of when a fetus becomes a legal entity would still be open for debate.
No inferred right to privacy needed.

Cobra you write:

Abortion on the other hand, being mired in the uncertainty of when a fetus becomes a legal entity would still be open for debate.

Philosophically, I agree there may be something to your point. Practically there is NO legal precedent on which to build a decision. And if a fetus has legal rights, mothers who smoke can be sued for damages to their baby, right?

As another pragmatic matter, overturn/abolish the right to privacy and birth control pills can become illegal for the 10 -15 years it takes for cases to reach the US Supreme Court.

Over beer and pretzels and as part of a "what if" Hitler had gotten hit by a bus in 1932 discussion, we can debate the point in an amusing fashion.

In the real world, you are simply wrong. Very, very wrong. :;):

BWhite · 2005-07-19 13:28:38

My bad, you are SO wrong about this. . .

Nowhere does it grant authority for government to restrict contraception.

What about cocaine? Or theft for that matter? Or bank robberies.

States have ALL soveriegn rights not prohibited by the US Constitution. Its the premise of federalism.

= = =

If Roe v Wade is overturned, Griswold cannot be defended. Not to mention laws about what spouses can do in the privacy of their own homes.

Practically I have sympathy for the idea that abortion and contraception aren't the same thing. Legally, absent a clarifying constitutioanl amendment (yeah, rigth) I see NO legal way to reject Roe v Wade and preserve Griswold.

Edited By BWhite on 1121801641

reddragon · 2005-07-19 13:31:48

But the vast bulk of the country doesn't see it that way. They see it as Roe vs. Wade created abortion, hence the current conflict over it.

Ah, the ignorant populace. Abortion was around long before Roe vs. Wade and it certainly wasn't always criminalized, even in the United States. I agree with Clark that the court affirmed an existing right, not created a new one. I do, however, think that the decision had some problems. Principally, the limit of "survivability" can change with technology, but I doubt the limit of when a fetus is too much a human being to be aborted should.

This does bring up two other issues. First, can any medical process truly be called "natural?" Abortion is not a "natural right" by any stretch of the imagination.

I think you're using two different definitions of natural. If people have a natural right (akin to other natural rights such as life, liberty, and property) to do as they wish with their own bodies, then they have a right to abortion (even though it is a man-made procedure) as long as a fetus is considered part of a woman's body.

Second, there is a very real question of when that fetus ceases to be "a woman's body" and becomes it's own entity deserving of legal protection. I don't pretend to have an answer to this but it can't be brushed aside either. Some say it starts at conception, I don't agree that a few cells equal a human being. Others argue that anything before the moment of birth is fair game. I don't agree. If you can kill a baby an hour before birth why not an hour after? Or a month? Or anytime before it's 18?

I can think of two definitions that could make sense. One is the onset of brain activity as measured by an EEG. The other is the beginning of conscious thought. This second requires some characteristic, such as REM sleep, that is considered to be indicative of consciousness.

Problem is, these things were never resolved. The discussion wasn't even had in any meaningful sense.

There are few meaningful discussions about abortion. (In the government or among people at the national level, that is). Generally it's just with us or against us; pro-life or pro-choice; friend or foe. People just keep yelling at each other. Nothing really gets done. (Of course if you're happy with the status quo, and I am fairly happy with it, maybe it's good if nothing gets done.

Facts of the Case
Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
Question Presented
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Conclusion
Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.

I must say that when people oppose contraception, I can not even see where they're coming from. What harm does it do to anybody?

I would add to the conclusion that people have a right to any counselling or advice that they choose to receive and that counselling services have the right to provide it. This law infringes upon counsellors' rights to free speech and their clients' right to hear what they have to say if they want to and to receive honest advice. The legislators claim by passing this law that they know more about counselling couples than professional counsellors do. It kind of throws professional accredation out the window. Furthermore, if the government considers birth control to be legal, then there is no rational reason for it to attempt to limit people's knowledge of it. Further this law attempts to limit the providing of information to the people, implying contempt of their intellects and ability to make choices. There are many reasons to strike down the law.

Is that conclusion you give yours or the courts, BWhite? I certainly agree with it, whoever's it is, although as I noted I have a few additions to make.

clark · 2005-07-19 13:32:31

In any case, using up all your anti-Right abortion arguments on me is a waste, it's like trying to convince your priest that there is a God.

I've been trying. Did I mention I have a lousy priest.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 13:34:10

In the real world, you are simply wrong. Very, very wrong.

Only. . . in the real world I'm not arguing for striking down Roe or the right to privacy.

My bad, you are SO wrong about this. . .
Quote
Nowhere does it grant authority for government to restrict contraception.

What about cocaine? Or theft for that matter? Or bank robberies.

Theft is taking a person's property without due process, the Constituion implies (yes, again, I'm not saying we disaregard inferred rights) that property rights need to be upheld. Otherwise the due process stuff is meaningless.

Bank robbery is theft, already covered.

I don't believe the government has any Constitutional or moral authority to restrict cocaine.

See, I'm fairly consistent. Just not consistent with the much-villified Right.

clark · 2005-07-19 13:35:43

libertarian.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 13:37:00

reddragon, google Griswold v Connecticut. I "cut and pasted" the summary.

Gotta go, this will will take time. Too much time.

The "tale of the two Ediths" - - stay tuned!

C M Edwards · 2005-07-19 13:37:52

...defend Griswold and reject Roe. How?

Griswold vs. Connecticut was not the only precedent for an implied right to privacy. There was already considerable philosophical debate in judicial circles about a right to privacy during the time of Woodrow Wilson's administration. Griswold vs. Connecticut just happened to be decided by the participants in that debate.

You do have one good point, though, Bill. Despite Clark's (true) statement about how the Roe vs. Wade decision is a limitation of governmental power rather than an extension of it, every related supreme court decision has been couched in terms of "The Right to Privacy", not just limitation of power. The arguments are all deontological, not literal interpretations of what the constitution allows.

"The Right to Privacy" has been the key concept. Knock that one pin out, and the rest will topple.

There's just one problem with that little trick, though: The US Supreme Court's technically correct. The constitution and bill of rights, taken together, do imply a right to privacy/self-determination. And plenty of other implied rights, too. It's inescapable that a deontology would lend itself to a deontological argument. Right or wrong, that's just its nature.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-19 13:50:06

Just as an aside, what did we learn today?

How willfully misinterpreting what people say and running with it leads to all sorts of screwy assumptions that a simple explanation, however oft repeated cannot set right.

Remember it while watching the news tonight.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1121802631

clark · 2005-07-19 13:57:26

Just as an aside, what did we learn today?

That you are ambivilent about a woman's right to choose and flagrantly continue the misrepresentation of what Roe v Wade means.

And as Bill said, you're really wrong. :laugh:

C M Edwards · 2005-07-19 14:35:11

That my fellow list members type at least 70 wpm, and it's time for "Political Potpourri" Thread 8?

BWhite · 2005-07-19 15:21:50

...defend Griswold and reject Roe. How?
Griswold vs. Connecticut was not the only precedent for an implied right to privacy. There was already considerable philosophical debate in judicial circles about a right to privacy during the time of Woodrow Wilson's administration. Griswold vs. Connecticut just happened to be decided by the participants in that debate.
You do have one good point, though, Bill. Despite Clark's (true) statement about how the Roe vs. Wade decision is a limitation of governmental power rather than an extension of it, every related supreme court decision has been couched in terms of "The Right to Privacy", not just limitation of power. The arguments are all deontological, not literal interpretations of what the constitution allows.
"The Right to Privacy" has been the key concept. Knock that one pin out, and the rest will topple.
There's just one problem with that little trick, though: The US Supreme Court's technically correct. The constitution and bill of rights, taken together, do imply a right to privacy/self-determination. And plenty of other implied rights, too. It's inescapable that a deontology would lend itself to a deontological argument. Right or wrong, that's just its nature.

C M Edwards, I agree with you.

Its been a long time since I have studied the details and nuances of Griswold and what came before and after.

Let's just say I have been posting "Con Law for Wingers" with the take home point being that Roe v Wade is NOT a stand alone decision easily reversed.

It won't be. There would be far too much collateral damage to the GOP if Roe actually were overturned, IMHO.

BWhite · 2005-07-19 15:35:05

Time for the 8th thread. . .

BWhite · 2005-07-19 15:46:00

Undo the pin so this thread can sink into oblivion

Palomar · 2005-07-19 15:47:51

Let's just say I have been posting "Con Law for Wingers" with the take home point being that Roe v Wade is NOT a stand alone decision easily reversed.
It won't be. There would be far too much collateral damage to the GOP if Roe actually were overturned, IMHO.

*This is one of those "should I?" times.

I doubt Roe vs. Wade would ever be overturned because society's mores and values have changed so substantially over the past 32 years. With our level of sexual freedoms and expressiveness now (much greater than it was in the early 1970s), I'd be genuinely stunned if we'd go back to the dark, dangerous days of "back-alley abortions" with coat-hangers and God knows what else. The outrage would be overwhelming, especially when reports of "Jane Doe #1000" dying as a result of complications of an illegal abortion became a headline.

I don't know if the fundies have thought that through, but then I suppose they'd be counting more on the FEAR of "back-alley abortion" complications prompting women to take more precautions not to become pregnant in the first place.

This nation's mood, votes and temperament have surprised me a couple of times before (majorly)...but I just really doubt there wouldn't be major shock and outrage, perhaps even riots and whatever else. The politicians overturning it would be risking political suicide, especially when pro-choice women line up at the polls (and they will).

Again, I'm personally opposed to abortion; I doubt I'd opt for one even if my own life were in danger. But I must respect the rights of other women to choose [I just wish more would choose prevention or ADOPTION over abortion; not all unwanted pregnancies come about via rape or incest; in fact, most don't].

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#351 2005-07-19 12:29:50

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#352 2005-07-19 12:41:34

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#353 2005-07-19 12:56:11

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#354 2005-07-19 12:59:29

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#355 2005-07-19 13:02:16

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#356 2005-07-19 13:06:26

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#357 2005-07-19 13:10:15

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#358 2005-07-19 13:12:32

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#359 2005-07-19 13:18:46

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#360 2005-07-19 13:26:12

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#361 2005-07-19 13:28:38

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#362 2005-07-19 13:31:48

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#363 2005-07-19 13:32:31

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#364 2005-07-19 13:34:10

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#365 2005-07-19 13:35:43

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#366 2005-07-19 13:37:00

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#367 2005-07-19 13:37:52

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#368 2005-07-19 13:50:06

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#369 2005-07-19 13:57:26

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#370 2005-07-19 14:35:11

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#371 2005-07-19 15:21:50

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#372 2005-07-19 15:35:05

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#373 2005-07-19 15:46:00

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#374 2005-07-19 15:47:51

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Board footer