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: Elroy who wrote (273026)	2/14/2006 7:49:56 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574854

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. I understand that argument. But it isn't really a response to my point. Roe expanded a "right to privacy" that had been created in Griswold to include abortion but as I said in my last post " 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. " If you assume that the fetus is not a separate individual, a separate human life, than it would seem just that the mother could do what she wants with her body (but then she can't legally do lots of other things with it). But the court is supposed to rule on the law, in this case the constitution, not the justices individual notions of what is fair and just.