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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (166633)	7/20/2005 3:07:10 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Precisely. And it was not until 1973, 184 years after the Constitution took effect, that they suddenly "discovered" that right. You clearly didn't make it past the first sentence of the section of Roe v. Wade that I quoted. That could be a part of your problem. Further, at the time of the Constitution abortion was legal under common law. Common law has been a basis for understanding/interpreting the Constitution through it's entire history. But how does a "right of privacy" translate to an a right to abortion on demand? What is the compelling interest of the State? Then why is the use of medical marijuana illegal according to the Feds? Why is it not protected by that same right? And why is assisted suicide also not protected? Again, the question is what is the compelling interest of the State? In the former, the decision is that there is a compelling State interest. For the later, the Oregon law still holds. Even in the dissenting opinion written by Rehnquist, he acknowledges that the health of the mother overrides any interest the State may have. Who is it that you want to decide the health of the mother issue? Doctor/patient or you want each case debated in Congress? jttmab