Constitutional right to privacy

[frigidweirdo]

Yes or no?

Please show where that is found.

The 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment does not call out a right to privacy.

It says all other "rights" belong to the people.

Somebody has to show that there is such a thing as a right to privacy (and you can spare me Stephen Douglas).

The constitution establishes limitations upon the government and therefore the burden is on them to show an absence of such right.

And was the right first acknowledged ? In the 1920's.

Given that rights are general protections afforded Americans....which were not afforded for 150 years and then only on a limited basis.....it's hard to take the argument it is right....seriously.

Only Americans?

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...." that means Congress can't do anything to anyone. American or otherwise.

2nd Amendment: "the right of the people" The people is Americans.

3rd Amendment: "No Soldier shall, " This is no soldier under Federal control, and this implies ALL houses in whatever country.

4th Amendment: "The right of the people"

5th Amendment: "No person " All people.

6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions," All people

7th Amendment: "In suits at common law," All people.

8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, " All people.

So only two amendments apply onto the Americans.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Please show where that is found.

The 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment does not call out a right to privacy.

It says all other "rights" belong to the people.

Somebody has to show that there is such a thing as a right to privacy (and you can spare me Stephen Douglas).

The constitution establishes limitations upon the government and therefore the burden is on them to show an absence of such right.

And was the right first acknowledged ? In the 1920's.

Given that rights are general protections afforded Americans....which were not afforded for 150 years and then only on a limited basis.....it's hard to take the argument it is right....seriously.

Only Americans?

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...." that means Congress can't do anything to anyone. American or otherwise.

2nd Amendment: "the right of the people" The people is Americans.

3rd Amendment: "No Soldier shall, " This is no soldier under Federal control, and this implies ALL houses in whatever country.

4th Amendment: "The right of the people"

5th Amendment: "No person " All people.

6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions," All people

7th Amendment: "In suits at common law," All people.

8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, " All people.

So only two amendments apply onto the Americans.

What ?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes to privacy

No to killing kids

Tha'ts not what the abortionists say.

I guess they don't consider a fetus a child.

Is it a child? A child is something that can live independently.

So, your definition of life is being able to survive on your own?

If you go look at a definition of "life" in the dictionary, you might be surprised to find more than one definition.

life | Definition of life in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

This one has five different definitions with subsections for some of those.

I also don't remember talking about a definition of life.

I wrote a definition of "child".

child | Definition of child in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

Generally meaning a human from birth up to the age of 18. Though definitions can often vary.

However, are we getting back to "life being important" argument?

I love this argument, because almost everyone who says that life is important will find that life isn't so important.

I have a few questions for you.

1) Did you support the US war in Iraq in 2003?
2) Do you support executions?
3) Do you eat meat?

Well, what I was getting at is, you define a child as being someone who can live on their own, therefore, you are saying that someone that cant live in their own, e.g. a fetus, is not life, and therefore, is a viable candidate for abortion, correct?

As for your 3 question?

1)no, I didn't support the war in Iraq, because I'm not convinced the found wmd's

2) yes, I support the death penalty provided the punishment fits the crime.

3) not sure what that has to do with this, but yes, I eat meat...

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Except of course when it comes to firearms right?

Stay on topic so you don't have to look like such a fool.

Right to Privacy is not ACTUALLY written anywhere in the Constitution but the right to keep and bear arms is. Yet you would usurp our rights on spurious claims.

I told you to stay on topic because you look like a fool. I don't want to usurp anyone's rights.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Given that rights are general protections afforded Americans....which were not afforded for 150 years and then only on a limited basis.....it's hard to take the argument it is right....seriously.

Well, there's your problem. Rights are not afforded Americans. Fundamental rights are natural in origin, possessed by the individual by virtue of their existence. While the law may establish new rights to be protected by the government along side those which are naturally possessed, the right to be left alone is a natural right, underpinning the natural and legal rights alike. Under the 9th amendment, the people reserve such fundamental rights.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Stormy if you want to keep the details about having sex with trump while his wife was pregnant private that is fine. No one wants to know the details. Well except republican christians this is their kind of thing.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Given that rights are general protections afforded Americans....which were not afforded for 150 years and then only on a limited basis.....it's hard to take the argument it is right....seriously.

Well, there's your problem. Rights are not afforded Americans. Fundamental rights are natural in origin, possessed by the individual by virtue of their existence. While the law may establish new rights to be protected by the government along side those which are naturally possessed, the right to be left alone is a natural right, underpinning the natural and legal rights alike. Under the 9th amendment, the people reserve such fundamental rights.

I am familiar with the concept.

Such fundamental "naturall" freedoms are referred to as liberties.

Rights are those things protected by government.

Government did not protect this "right" of privacy until the 1920's and even then on a limited basis.

Liberty, in general, is defined as the freedom to do what you want as long as it harms no one else.

The "right to privacy" is somehow linked to things that do affect other people (the unborn). While I am not a staunch pro-lifer, I don't believe this qualifies.

Maybe you are talking about something different (the right to be left alone) than what I assumed (my bad) you were.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Tha'ts not what the abortionists say.

I guess they don't consider a fetus a child.

Is it a child? A child is something that can live independently.

So, your definition of life is being able to survive on your own?

If you go look at a definition of "life" in the dictionary, you might be surprised to find more than one definition.

life | Definition of life in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

This one has five different definitions with subsections for some of those.

I also don't remember talking about a definition of life.

I wrote a definition of "child".

child | Definition of child in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

Generally meaning a human from birth up to the age of 18. Though definitions can often vary.

However, are we getting back to "life being important" argument?

I love this argument, because almost everyone who says that life is important will find that life isn't so important.

I have a few questions for you.

1) Did you support the US war in Iraq in 2003?
2) Do you support executions?
3) Do you eat meat?

Well, what I was getting at is, you define a child as being someone who can live on their own, therefore, you are saying that someone that cant live in their own, e.g. a fetus, is not life, and therefore, is a viable candidate for abortion, correct?

As for your 3 question?

1)no, I didn't support the war in Iraq, because I'm not convinced the found wmd's

2) yes, I support the death penalty provided the punishment fits the crime.

3) not sure what that has to do with this, but yes, I eat meat...

No, not really.

A fetus hasn't made connections in this world. Therefore it's not murder.

This isn't me explaining my reasons for why I think abortion should be allowed. This is me stating that a fetus is something different from a human.

Personally I think abortions should be limited in time. Say 4 months or whatever.

However the reasons I think abortions are valid is because there are too many people on this planet and too many people will end up being a cause of too many problems.

Children should be brought into this world with a chance, if someone doesn't feel they're in the right position to do so, then it's better it doesn't happen.

So you support the death penalty. So you're not pro-life then. You might be anti-abortion.

But here's a scenario. Would you have a child brought into this world under bad conditions only for them to murder and then be executed for that murder?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I guess they don't consider a fetus a child.

Is it a child? A child is something that can live independently.

So, your definition of life is being able to survive on your own?

If you go look at a definition of "life" in the dictionary, you might be surprised to find more than one definition.

life | Definition of life in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

This one has five different definitions with subsections for some of those.

I also don't remember talking about a definition of life.

I wrote a definition of "child".

child | Definition of child in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

Generally meaning a human from birth up to the age of 18. Though definitions can often vary.

However, are we getting back to "life being important" argument?

I love this argument, because almost everyone who says that life is important will find that life isn't so important.

I have a few questions for you.

1) Did you support the US war in Iraq in 2003?
2) Do you support executions?
3) Do you eat meat?

Well, what I was getting at is, you define a child as being someone who can live on their own, therefore, you are saying that someone that cant live in their own, e.g. a fetus, is not life, and therefore, is a viable candidate for abortion, correct?

As for your 3 question?

1)no, I didn't support the war in Iraq, because I'm not convinced the found wmd's

2) yes, I support the death penalty provided the punishment fits the crime.

3) not sure what that has to do with this, but yes, I eat meat...

No, not really.

A fetus hasn't made connections in this world. Therefore it's not murder.

This isn't me explaining my reasons for why I think abortion should be allowed. This is me stating that a fetus is something different from a human.

Personally I think abortions should be limited in time. Say 4 months or whatever.

However the reasons I think abortions are valid is because there are too many people on this planet and too many people will end up being a cause of too many problems.

Children should be brought into this world with a chance, if someone doesn't feel they're in the right position to do so, then it's better it doesn't happen.

So you support the death penalty. So you're not pro-life then. You might be anti-abortion.

But here's a scenario. Would you have a child brought into this world under bad conditions only for them to murder and then be executed for that murder?

But a fetus has made connections. When a woman gets pregnant, there is an emotional bond that is triggered and it grows stronger over time.

I agree that babies should be brought in with a chance, but the control measures should happen on the other end, not the baby. In otherwords, if you are not ready to have children, don't mess with chance, stop having sex, get fixed, take the proper precautions.

Living a promiscuous lifestyle, and then wanting to throw away the results of that lifestyle is wrong.

Yes, a baby may grow up to be a murderer...or, they could grow up to be the next Bach, einstein, or Monet.

Because I support the death penalty doesnt mean I'm not pro life. In regards to pregnancy, yes, I lean pro life, in regards to a criminal who has earned it, I lean toward the death penalty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes or no?

Are we compelled by an act of congress to divulge the most intimate details of our lives, such as where we live, if we rent or own, where we work, how much we make, if we are married, if we have children, any investments we have?

IF we are compelled by law to reveal "our papers and persons" then to claim a right to privacy is absurd.

The ONLY time the left speaks of "privacy" is to pervert it into a right to abortion on demand.

 

[Uncensored2008]

4th amendment

Show me "abortion" in the 4th, Comrade?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes to privacy

No to killing kids

Tha'ts not what the abortionists say.

I guess they don't consider a fetus a child.

I guess they are ignorant and anti-science.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is an acorn a tree?

Never mind. I'm sure you'll say yes, despite that being a really stupid thing to say.

Is a sapling?

Be honest with you comparisons.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Is it a child? A child is something that can live independently.

So, your definition of life is being able to survive on your own?

If you go look at a definition of "life" in the dictionary, you might be surprised to find more than one definition.

life | Definition of life in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

This one has five different definitions with subsections for some of those.

I also don't remember talking about a definition of life.

I wrote a definition of "child".

child | Definition of child in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

"A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

Generally meaning a human from birth up to the age of 18. Though definitions can often vary.

However, are we getting back to "life being important" argument?

I love this argument, because almost everyone who says that life is important will find that life isn't so important.

I have a few questions for you.

1) Did you support the US war in Iraq in 2003?
2) Do you support executions?
3) Do you eat meat?

Well, what I was getting at is, you define a child as being someone who can live on their own, therefore, you are saying that someone that cant live in their own, e.g. a fetus, is not life, and therefore, is a viable candidate for abortion, correct?

As for your 3 question?

1)no, I didn't support the war in Iraq, because I'm not convinced the found wmd's

2) yes, I support the death penalty provided the punishment fits the crime.

3) not sure what that has to do with this, but yes, I eat meat...

No, not really.

A fetus hasn't made connections in this world. Therefore it's not murder.

This isn't me explaining my reasons for why I think abortion should be allowed. This is me stating that a fetus is something different from a human.

Personally I think abortions should be limited in time. Say 4 months or whatever.

However the reasons I think abortions are valid is because there are too many people on this planet and too many people will end up being a cause of too many problems.

Children should be brought into this world with a chance, if someone doesn't feel they're in the right position to do so, then it's better it doesn't happen.

So you support the death penalty. So you're not pro-life then. You might be anti-abortion.

But here's a scenario. Would you have a child brought into this world under bad conditions only for them to murder and then be executed for that murder?

But a fetus has made connections. When a woman gets pregnant, there is an emotional bond that is triggered and it grows stronger over time.

I agree that babies should be brought in with a chance, but the control measures should happen on the other end, not the baby. In otherwords, if you are not ready to have children, don't mess with chance, stop having sex, get fixed, take the proper precautions.

Living a promiscuous lifestyle, and then wanting to throw away the results of that lifestyle is wrong.

Yes, a baby may grow up to be a murderer...or, they could grow up to be the next Bach, einstein, or Monet.

Because I support the death penalty doesnt mean I'm not pro life. In regards to pregnancy, yes, I lean pro life, in regards to a criminal who has earned it, I lean toward the death penalty.

Okay, there are connections with the woman. The woman is the one to decide what those connections are. That's the point here. The woman gets to decide.

Gets stronger over time, yes, it does. Now, about 75% of pregnancies end in abortion naturally. Before the woman even knows it. Gods work, right? God and abortion? Is God bad for this?
Does anyone actually notice these 75% of aborted pregnancies? No. So.... what's the problem?

Fine, the control measures should take place at the other end. Is it the child's fault if they don't happen at the other end. Using contraceptives stop that life from being formed. The Catholics have a problem with this.
If the egg and the sperm, the life, are destroyed before they meet it's not considered murder by anyone. It happens all the time.
If the life starts to be formed just a little, then is destroyed, and no child ends up coming out, what's the difference?

Really the difference is in semantics.

Living a promiscuous life and then throwing away the results might be considered wrong to you. The question is, is this any of your business?

Now, living a promiscuous life, and then being forced to bring up a child, doing it exceedingly badly that the child has a fucked up life and ends up living a promiscuous life, or a murderous life, is this not wrong?

Sometimes you have different choices of wrong. Wrong might be wrong, but some wrongs are better than other wrongs.

And yes, they could end up to be a murderer or a Bach.
Now, how many kids born in the poorest parts of the US go on to be geniuses and how many of them go on to be murderers?

The reality is that most of the cases of babies being born that are not wanted, are poorer folk who aren't as smart, and the less smart people are, the chances are their kids are going to be less smart too.

Yes, if you support the death penalty, it means you're not pro-life.

Okay, I'm being a little pedantic here. Pro-life means you support life. Supposedly. In fact the right have decided that "anti-abortion" is negative, so they switched it to "pro-" and they couldn't find anything better than "pro-life", so they stick to it.

But because a lot of people like to make things that are convenient for themselves, they've decided they can be "pro-life" and pro-executions, war and eating meat.

Pedantic I might be, but I also know that I'm right, and that anyone who decides they're "pro-life" and yet supports the death of animals, the death of criminals, the death of soldiers, is not "pro-life" and they're just playing with words.

It's about being honest with yourself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Everyone is ‘pro-life’ – including those who acknowledge and respect a woman’s right to privacy, and that government has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

A woman, her family, and her doctor are best suited to decide personal private matters such as whether to have a child or not, consistent with her own good conscience and good faith, not government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Everyone is ‘pro-life’ – including those who acknowledge and respect a woman’s right to privacy, and that government has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

A woman, her family, and her doctor are best suited to decide personal private matters such as whether to have a child or not, consistent with her own good conscience and good faith, not government.

Once a baby is 20 weeks old it can live outside the womb, thus no amount of fetus talk or can't survive on its own comes into play that becomes straight up murder and you are fine with that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Everyone is ‘pro-life’ – including those who acknowledge and respect a woman’s right to privacy, and that government has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

A woman, her family, and her doctor are best suited to decide personal private matters such as whether to have a child or not, consistent with her own good conscience and good faith, not government.

You're not.

You are pro abortion.

Abortion is not "privacy." A procedure done by strangers in a public facility is not "private."

 

[Thinker101]

Yes to privacy

No to killing kids

Tha'ts not what the abortionists say.

I guess they don't consider a fetus a child.

Is it a child? A child is something that can live independently.

Unless the child is a liberal, then living independently happens around the 50 year mark.

 

[Timmy]

4th amendment

Show me "abortion" in the 4th, Comrade?

Who said anything about abortion? The question was about right to privacy .

 

[Timmy]

Everyone is ‘pro-life’ – including those who acknowledge and respect a woman’s right to privacy, and that government has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

A woman, her family, and her doctor are best suited to decide personal private matters such as whether to have a child or not, consistent with her own good conscience and good faith, not government.

You're not.

You are pro abortion.

Abortion is not "privacy." A procedure done by strangers in a public facility is not "private."

Then we have no privacy in our medical decisions?