I was assuming that you would recognize a phrase taken almost verbatim from the Bill of Rights.
Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Do you get that? It means that just because the Constitution lists certain rights it doesn't mean that there aren't a universe of other unlisted rights that are enjoyed by the people of the United States. That's not some "liberal activist" twisting-which evidently means anything you disagree with. It is text from the Constitution itself.
We don't live under a system of codes. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are not the laws of the land, much as some idiots might wish them to be.
Whether you like it or not fortunately the Founders were smart enough to put something in the Constitution that was intended to prevent just the sort of argument that claims that because a right is not specifically listed it can therefore be violated or does not exist. Thus the "right to privacy" can be established both via 5th and 14th amendments but also the 9th amendment.
Even so-called originalists disagree about how far the 9th amendment should go. The Founders left it vague on purpose. So saying the "right to privacy" is not listed in the Constitution misses the point. The point is rather why one would think that a document that goes to great lengths to strictly limit the powers of the states and federal government and lists all sorts of enumerated and unenumerated rights of the individual to be left alone wouldn't recognize a right to privacy.
I realize you subscribe to the line of thinking that supports the assertion women have some inherent "right" to abort their unborn children, that gays have some inherent "right" to marry, and the like. It's debatable, to say the least, whether these so called "rights" really exist.
I seem to remember there being something in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution about "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Bottom line, rather than pretend the Constitution says something, or can say something, that it doesn't, things beyond what it says should be left up to the states. Even if you're philosophically "pro-choice," you can't legitimately argue that the case it was founded on really has merit.
Anyway you cut it, to argue that the "right to privacy" statement in the Constitution somehow gives a woman the "right" to have her unborn child killed is beyond ludicrous and is one of the biggest demonstrations of the hypocrisy of the left.
Originally Posted By: olivant
Despite my stance on abortion, I support the courts' use of substantive due process as the context for some of their decisions. I trust the justices to make prudent decisions. Despite the abhorrent consequences of Roe v. Wade, the basis of the decision was proper.
No, it wasn't. As I said above, and as even many "pro-choice" people admit (if they're honest), the issue should have been left up to the states.
Last edited by IvyLeague; 03/10/1208:38 PM.
Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.
