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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (164162)	3/13/2003 8:27:56 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573857

Please read the post I just did to D. Ray on the Miranda Act. Miranda wasn't quite as much of a case of judicial activism as Roe vs. Wade. The constitution does explicitly protect against forced self incrimination. However the court was effectivly making law. It did not order that the state and federal governments have to protect people from self incrimination, or toss out the one case in question where presumably someone's right to not be forced to incriminate himself was not protected, instead it made a new specific detailed requirement that is no where spelled out in the constitution. Its in the English Common Law, starting with the Magna Carta, which served as the basis for the Constitution. You heard of the saying: The home is a man's castle. Well, it stems from the right to privacy as it effects property, assets and one's body. M. Jackson has the right to totally fuck up his nose. That right stems from right to privacy. So you have a constitutional right to sell sex for money or to take drugs? There are lots of things that you can do with your body, that the state regulates. How does the constitution allow the state and federal governments to regulate or outlaw them but not abortion? I may be wrong but, I thought only rape was just cause for an abortion beyond the first trimester. You are wrong. Even as originally written Roe vs Wade allowed abortion past the 1st trimester "(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164." members.aol.com "(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." members.aol.com In other words it may regulate abortion in such a way as to promote maternal health. If a certain procedure is unsafe for the mother it may be outlawed or regulated. Post "viability" abortion may be outlawed but an exception must exist if the health of the mother is endangered. In other words if a doctor says "my patient needs an abortion" the state has to let you have one. Later court decisions added "mental health" issues as things that enforce a right to an abortion at any stage of the pregenancy. It has become a hole so wide you can drive a truck through it. Its not total bs. You don't have the right to legislate what a person does with their body sexually or otherwise I probably would deny such rights less then you would. but the right has made every effort to do so in the name of morality. The left is at least as controling as the elements of the right that you speak of, just about different things. Actually sometimes even about the same things (for example feminist groups that are against pornography). But you go beyond that. You don't say "elements on the right want to control certain aspects of peoples lives". You say instead "the right's" (meaning all of it or at least the majority of it) "talk of individual rights is just a scam". That is BS. Even the conservative religious part of the right believes in individual rights, they just have different opinions about those rights then you do (and in many cases different opinions then the one's I hold). There is no scam involved. It would be like me saying that any concern you have about constitutional rights is a scam because you are not a strong 2nd ammendment rights supporter. I think such a statement from me would be similar BS. (although I can't actually know without reading your mind...) Tim