Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (4021)	1/30/2001 2:26:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The line of cases leading to Roe started with forced sterilization cases and contraceptive cases. If there is no right of privacy than I don't see how those cases stand either. I am against forced sterilization and a government ban on contraception. I don't however think we should invent constituitional rights in order to keep these things from happening. If you can twist the constitution to invent rights you can probably twist it to take some away (and argueably finding something as a right can infinge on another right). It could be possible to find other constituional support for not allowing forced steilization or a ban on contraception. Forced sterilization in particular is an attack on a person. It could be considered punishment without due process of law, it could also be considered creul and unusal punishment, and the way it was applied could be considered to be against the equal protection clause. The last sentance is kind of off the top of my head, I haven't spent a lot of time considering that issue. As for a government ban on contraception I would argue that the constitution gives the federal government no power to impose any such ban. A ban imposed by the states would be a bad perhaps even unjust policy but I can't see how it is forbiden by the constitution. I do not think the travel cases that overturned segregation are justified by the constitution either If you are talking about government enforced segregation I would say it is banned by the 14th and 15th amendments. As for private predjudice, bigotry, and discrimination I don't think that is an issue for the constitution or the law unless it procedes to actual attacks on people because of this hatred. This isn't a popular idea on this thread (or across the country), but I believe discrimination by private individuals and businesses should be legal. Boycott the bigots if you want but they should not be compelled to be fair and unbiased by the force of law if they are only dealing with their own property and relationships. I wish the religious right would go after people abusing already born children. A lot of people do. Quite a few of them are religous conservatives. (I'm not trying to say that liberals or non-religous people ignore this issue, I'm just saying the religous right does not.) Tim