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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (116005)	5/24/2005 7:55:17 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793812

I think for example that constitutional rights have been interpreted to apply to non-citizen residents I did reference that. I used the word, "foreigners." We generously apply our rights to foreigners and we could do so to the pre-born if we wanted to, but that's not the same as the constitution guaranteeing them. I am not actively endorsing it, just putting it out there to answer the question of how the fetus could be considered to have constitutional rights. One can make that argument, but a strict constructionist couldn't make it. That was the point I dropped earlier because I wasn't getting through. "One" can interpret a lot of things that a strict constructionist can't. You also say "You can go ahead and claim that human rights are incorporated in the same way that inalienable and natural and all those other rights are, via the penumbra or the ninth amendment or whatever, but I don't see how you can do that as a strict constructionist." That's a hypothetical, a suggestion of what you might claim, not an assertion of what you have claimed. Just trying to lay out alternatives of what you might claim. Read it as "one might claim..." Sorry for the confusion. The constitution is quite clear about whose rights cannot be abridged, and it sure doesn't include embryos." But that argument simply isn't correct unless you are arguing for a constitutional right to abortion. No, that statement means that the constitution clearly does not award rights to embryos, a subject we already covered. It doesn't speak to anyone's right to an abortion. Sorry for the indirect sentence structure. If its silly to claim a constitutional right to abortion than it would seem you are conceding that part of the argument, No. A right to an abortion is a positive right. If I say I want one, someone has to give it to me. The right to be left alone is a negative right. It means no one can stop me from having one. The former is a right to abortion. The latter is a right to privacy. I do not claim any right to an abortion. >>"A negative right is a right, either moral or decreed by law, to not be subject to an action of another human being (usually abuse or coercion). Negative rights are sometimes contrasted with positive rights, which are rights to be provided with something by the positive action of another. The former proscribe action, while the latter prescribe action. One example of a negative right is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which makes it unlawful for the government to restrict a person's speech. A law requiring another person to provide him with a microphone would codify a positive right." en.wikipedia.org <<