Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Okie- The word "privacy" is NOT found in the Constitution. Even the author of Roe Vs. Wade, Supreme Court Justice Blackmum said so--He wrote:

'The Constitution does not explicity mention any right of privacy. "

Blackmum "felt" that the right of privacy, whereever it comes from, inlcludes the right to abortion. DO NOT LOOK ANY FURTHER FOR LEGAL ARGUMENT AMIDST THE VOLUMINOUS OPINION BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Well, Just where did it (the idea of privacy) come from?

Brace yourself, Okie--

one of the most parodied phrases in Supreme Court History( you do expect the USSC judges to be more exact and reality based) comee from Justice William O. Douglas( a notorious liberal) when he wrote that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have "penumbras", formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance"

Douglas found a right to privacy in a penumbra of an emanation.

Only a liberal could do that!!!!!

0 Replies

Then if a law was enacted to make abortion a crime, then the Fourth Amendment would not apply. Proof again the amendment has nothing to do with what is done in private. It has to do with unreasonable search and seizure. We have right to privacy insofar as we are not engaged in illegal activity and there is no significant reason to suspect we are engaged in illegal activity, but we do not have a right to do anything in private, unless of course it is legal.

This little debate amply demonstrates that abortion and the right to privacy are two different matters. Wouldn't it be great if the Supreme Court would apply logic as well? Advocate, this is what conservatives have referred to when they talk about liberal judges manufacturing and making law, not interpreting it. Even some abortion advocates that are legal experts admit that the right to privacy is not a credible legal argument to legalize abortion.

You don't have to be a lawyer to read the Bill of Rights and use just a little bit of common sense.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Okie- The word "privacy" is NOT found in the Constitution. Even the author of Roe Vs. Wade, Supreme Court Justice Blackmum said so--He wrote:

'The Constitution does not explicity mention any right of privacy. "

Bernard, I posted my last post the same time you posted yours. I am fully aware of what you said. And don't you love this little debate with Advocate that demonstrates the simple fallacy of their argument! I thought it was beautiful and a lesson in using logic, which they are not using with this matter of right to privacy. It is patently ridiculous.

0 Replies

Read the word "secure" as "privacy." The SC held that the anti-abortion laws were a nullity in light of a woman's right of privacy relative to having an abortion.

0 Replies

The word is "secure," NOT "PRIVACY."

Advocate, I realize what the Supreme Court decision was, however simple common sense indicates it was wrong. Our little debate illustrated beautifully why it was wrong. All kinds of things done in private are crimes. Privacy does not automatically trump other laws. Therefore it was wrongheaded for the Supreme Court to create an inconsistent anomaly by ruling that privacy trumped abortion laws. If privacy trumps abortion laws, then for the court to be consistent, privacy should also trump dozens of other laws prohibiting criminal activity in private.

The problem arose by some justices reading more into the constitution than was really there, as Bernard pointed out. They changed the meaning and intent of the constitution to fit their desired decision. The fact is the constitution does not specifically address abortion, so I think, as do many others, that it would best be left to the state legislatures where it was before.

0 Replies

Advocate- Read Griswold Vs. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 ( 1965)

Every law school student knows that the concept of "privacy" came from that case and was introduced by Justice Douglas.

"secure" did not enter into it!!

Get a book on the Supreme Court or read the case on line!!!

0 Replies

I cannot think of anything more of an infringement on a person's right to be secure in her person than a law proscribing abortion. Such a law is clearly trumped by the Bill. Okie, you seem to think that any statute trumps the Bill.

Griswold indeed introduced the concept of privacy being derived from the Bill. Moreover, Dershowitz recently said that the word "secure" should be read as "privacy."

BTW, no one was more astute and brilliant than Douglas.

0 Replies

B, please don't misquote me. I did not say Dershowitz supports abortion.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I cannot think of anything more of an infringement on a person's right to be secure in her person than a law proscribing abortion. Such a law is clearly trumped by the Bill. Okie, you seem to think that any statute trumps the Bill.

Advocate, the truth is the Bill of Rights says nothing, absolutely nothing about abortion.

And Bernard, perhaps you have the info. Was it Thurgood Marshall that has admitted the Roe v Wade decision was never intended to result in what did result as a consequence. His intent or goal was to simply prohibit states from disallowing abortions in the most unusual of cases where rape and other extenuating circumstances occurred. He never imagined the decision would be used as a rampant birth control method. This information sticks in my mind, I could google it, but maybe you have recollection of it. At the time, it struck me that the man was of course naive concerning the decision. Its called the "law of unintended consequenses." And interestingly, liberals seem especially blind to that law.

0 Replies

Checked some sources. Cannot find, Okie but I will stay alert to it.

0 Replies

Okie, abortion is birth control. What else could it be?

The Bill of Rights also fails to mention wiretapping. But I doubt that you would deny that the Fourth Amendment proscribes this without probable cause and a warrant.

0 Replies

Advocate- Abortion is not in the constitution. Neither is privacy. Neither is wiretapping. But the right to privacy was found by Douglas using idiotic logic. You will never find wiretapping in the Constitution. The lawmakers DO IN FACT ALLOW WIRETAPPING UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

There is no privacy right listed in the constitution.

There is no bar against wiretapping in the constitution.

The Justices take a law passed by a legisature or a practice of a firm, individual, group, or church and then, upon study of the PRINCIPLES of the Constitution agree as to whether a particular legislative action, or an action taken by an individual, group or church VIOLATES THAT PRINCIPLE.

Douglas INVENTED the Privacy Right. It has been used to set up Roe Vs. Wade.

Do you know of a case in which Wiretapping has been sanctioned by the courts? If so, it is not because wiretapping is IN THE CONSTITUTION, BUT because in a particular case when the case is applied against the Principles of the Constitution, wiretapping is either ruled as illegal or, on the other hand, able to be applied!

0 Replies

Correct Bernard, privacy has nothing to do with law. If it did, anything we did in private would be offlimits to any jurisdiction of laws, which is utterly and obviously not true. If it were, look for plenty more things to become legal here pretty soon. Things like drug use, prostitution, etc.

One thing is apparent to me. Just because somebody is a Supreme Court justice does not automatically make them very skilled at using logic.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Did I ever say it (a woman getting an unwanted pregnancy] was my business?

You most certainly did.

okie wrote:

The abortion issue really boils down to this: we want to have sex all we want anytime we want with anyone we want and if it results in unwanted offspring, our pleasure means more than even they. Our pleasure means more than even our own unborn children. Very sick society indeed.

kelticwizard wrote:

That is your post, Okie, and you made it clear that you look down on women who have unwanted pregnancies. Clearly, you are passing judgment on these women, which certainly qualifies as "making it your business".

okie wrote:

keltic, if I think burglary is wrong, I am passing judgement. If I think abortion is wrong, I am passing judgement on the act of abortion.

Then don't try to tell us, as you have, that you don't believe how a woman gets an unwanted pregnancy is not your business. You just made it clear that you DO consider it your business, or else you would not have put up your post condemning them for it. You lied. Just like the anti-choice people lie when they advertise centers which contain nothing but anti-abortion advocates as providing "Abortion Services".

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The abortion issue really boils down to this: we want to have sex all we want anytime we want with anyone we want and if it results in unwanted offspring, our pleasure means more than even they. Our pleasure means more than even our own unborn children. Very sick society indeed.

After this blast, Okie tries to tell us the following.

okie wrote:

The women that do it, I have compassion for, I do not hate them or look down on them. I think they are mis-guided, and I am sorry that they are left to live with what they did.

You don't look down on them? Look what you just wrote in your first post!

Okie, it is impossible to believe a single thing you post. Sorry, but it is true. To communicate with someone, there has to be some sort ability to at least recognize that there must be some consistency from post to post. You, on the other hand, blast away at women who have unwanted pregnancies in one post, challenge others to show where you said it was any of your business how they became pregnant in your next post, then try to tell us that you have compassion for the same women you ran down in your first post. All in successive posts.

There comes a time when one must realize that somebody is putting nothing but talking points up on this board, that he is not even bothering to be logically consistent from post to post. Clearly, you are one of those people.

0 Replies

I am totally consistent. What you are unable to do is separate action from the people that take those actions. To repeat in different words what I have already explained, judging the action of a person as wrong does not mean you have no compassion for that person.

If someone is sick, do you look down on them, or do you try to help them to get over what is ailing them? I said, society is sick. Society is over sexualized, and I think it is sick for abortion to become commonplace in society, mainly for the purpose of birth control.

I find it rather bizarre that you and others get so all fired up over somebody counseling a woman that another alternative besides aborting their child might be available. I fail to understand your hellbent attitude about the right to kill the unborn, and how dare anybody suggest to a woman otherwise. How do you feel good about that?

0 Replies

Okie- This ground has already been covered but Keltic Wizard acts as if it had not so I will repeat it.

THE A C L U, A C L U( the organization devoted to the First Amendment--The Right to Freedom of Speech--has had a serious internal rift because some of the Board Members question some ACLU initiatives which would appear to be on the side of the Abortionists in this matter.

Keltic Wizard may bluster and moan. He may shout or whisper. He may declaim or assert but since he himself has noted that there is no law against the Anti-Abortion counseling groups at this time, the only device he can fall back on is principle---and that is totally destroyed by the fact that even some members of the ACLU, who, it must be remembered, hold freedom of speech as their HIGHEST VALUE, indicate that the Anti-Abortion groups have a RIGHT to their opinions and operations!

0 Replies

Okie, you seem to think that sex is dirty. Hey, that is the best kind.

Abortion rights is another issue entirely. It is none of society's business whether a woman wants to abort a fetus. It is beyond my understanding how anyone can tell a woman that she must carry an unwanted fetus to term, and care for the resultant child for, say, 18 years.

I wonder why the right hates the Bill of Rights. I guess it doesn't value freedom.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Okie, you seem to think that sex is dirty. Hey, that is the best kind.

Abortion rights is another issue entirely. It is none of society's business whether a woman wants to abort a fetus. It is beyond my understanding how anyone can tell a woman that she must carry an unwanted fetus to term, and care for the resultant child for, say, 18 years.

I wonder why the right hates the Bill of Rights. I guess it doesn't value freedom.

No, not at all. Sex is not dirty. I am only reminding you that sex without responsibility is irresponsible.

The right does not hate the Bill of Rights. We love the Bill of Rights, and that is why we are repulsed by people trying to misinterpret and misuse the Bill of Rights by claiming it protects the act of killing of the unborn. Nothing could be more repulsive to the concept of rights.

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know