Replies

"How do you propose to deal with the many cases in which pregnancy is clearly involuntary? You must remove your head from the sand on this one.

Actually I have responded to you on this question in #308. But I will remind you of my line of reasoning:

You may argue that a mother who has conceived because of rape had no choice. This is true. But the father had a choice and should be duly punished for his violation. Many of the best and longest-lasting societies punished rape as heavily as murder and rightly so. Indeed most states at the time of Founding prosecuted it as a capital offense to the astonishment of some Europeans at the time. We seem to have lost sight not only of the grievous offense of rape, but also no longer take such precautions as both prevent rape and make prosecution of it possible. But, the resultant child who is as much a victim as the mother should not be executed for having given no offense. The mother may be traumatised for the rest of her life and if she should seek termination of the unwanted child, her crime might be mitigated, perhaps even completely, because of such trauma. But make no mistake, that child is not an intruder. That zygote committed no violation of natural nor political law.

But, you have not responded to my objections to your applications of the Constitution, and have yet to show what at all in the Constitution has a bearing on the abortion debate. I suggest you read the ninth amendment where it is clearly stated that simply because the Constitution protects certain rights of the individual and the sovereignties of the states, it should not be construed to mean that there are not other rights that in the light of the tenth amendment fall altogether outside the domain of the federal government.

But perhaps you are under the spell of the Supreme dictates that there are certain penumbras in the Constitution that give forth emanations giving life to certain zones of privacy, or to put it plainly that there is an unwritten and yet still binding amendment that protects the absolute right to privacy and makes the Supreme Court and its executive henchman the guarantors of such hidden rights. It is a very difficult amendment to debate over, because it is difficult to discern the meaning of what is not there. But before you respond I suggest you read my post #401.

"But, the resultant child who is as much a victim"

I really must raise the BS flag on you here. He(the child) is not as much a victim. He wasn't even around when the act happened. If an unwanted child is by definition a victim, there are a lot of victims out there. Of course, liberals think we're all victims.

You're fantasizing, just like you're fantasizing about me not backing up my position with the Constitution. Almost every single post I make, I point out that Amendment IV, the right to be secure in one's person, and Amendment XIII, the right to not involuntarily serve, and Amendment X, backs up my position that:

State legislatures should decide that governmentally protectable life begins at whatever point they choose to define physical independence.

Your position on rape will result in an unjust burden on a supposedly free American woman. You force the rape to last 9 months.

But perhaps you are under the spell of the Supreme dictates that there are certain penumbras in the Constitution that give forth emanations giving life to certain zones of privacy, or to put it plainly that there is an unwritten and yet still binding amendment that protects the absolute right to privacy and makes the Supreme Court and its executive henchman the guarantors of such hidden rights. It is a very difficult amendment to debate over, because it is difficult to discern the meaning of what is not there. "

I really don't think I could have been any clearer. I did not use a "right to privacy" to justify anything I've said. I never mentioned the word "privacy". The justices that do are neglegent and perjurous. They are disregarding their oath to uphold what the Constitution says and only what it says.

I clearly said that the right to not be seized, and the right to not involuntarily serve another in a physical capacity (the 4th And 13th amendments respectively) are in play here. I don't need to make up some "right to privacy", so in response to your first four words above, "perhaps I am NOT". I can use the words in the Constitution to support my belief quite nicely, that:

State legislatures should decide that governmentally protectable life begins at the point when physical independence is possible for the life.

But make no mistake, that child is not an intruder. That zygote committed no violation of natural nor political law.

You know, a mentally sick person can wander into my house, and be an intruder, and I have a perfect right to kick him out, whether he intended to violate my space or whether he was too mentally incapacitated to have any guilt for trespassing. A weed can be an intruder, in my garden. An intruder doesn't have to be culpable, or have legal guilt, it just has to be in my space.