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: TimF who wrote (272993)	2/9/2006 1:16:58 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574848

There is no explicit constitutional right to privacy in general, nor any reason in either normal English usage (at least pre-Roe) or in the constitution to equate abortion with privacy. I think it stems from the idea that the fetus is not a separate individual, rather it is part of the mother's body, and therefore the mother has the right to do what she wants with her body. Not exactly sure if that relates to "privacy", but I think the SC's logic is along those lines.

To: TimF who wrote (272993)	2/11/2006 3:57:52 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1574848

This post linked above isn't about abortion or Roe, but the ideas in it apply even more strongly to Roe. There is at least an explicitly constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, and a fairly explicit power to use eminent domain for public use. There is no explicit constitutional right to privacy in general, nor any reason in either normal English usage (at least pre-Roe) or in the constitution to equate abortion with privacy. Roe built off of Griswald, which built off of earlier legal theorizing. Each was not a spectacular departure from the legal thought at the time. It might possible to tract back small shift after small shift to the actual constitution (although I can't find any relevant USSC precedent before Griswald). But all those tiny grains add up to a heap of difference from the actual words of the constitution. I don't understand you point. ted

To: TimF who wrote (272993)	2/11/2006 3:57:52 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574848

This post linked above isn't about abortion or Roe, but the ideas in it apply even more strongly to Roe. There is at least an explicitly constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, and a fairly explicit power to use eminent domain for public use. There is no explicit constitutional right to privacy in general, nor any reason in either normal English usage (at least pre-Roe) or in the constitution to equate abortion with privacy. Roe built off of Griswald, which built off of earlier legal theorizing. Each was not a spectacular departure from the legal thought at the time. It might possible to tract back small shift after small shift to the actual constitution (although I can't find any relevant USSC precedent before Griswald). But all those tiny grains add up to a heap of difference from the actual words of the constitution. I don't understand you point. ted