[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
given that there is a debate, and that the only way the fetus can survive is inside the woman's body, the state is not does not have the right to force a woman to carry the fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people disagree, the Constitution decides that one group rather than the other is right? Isn't that what we have legislatures for?

[/ QUOTE ]

So if a majority of people agree to do something, it's okay, no matter what it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

To quote Gary Coleman, "That's a very glib interpretation."

[/ QUOTE ]

How else could one interpret it? It seems like a very obvious case of being unconcerned with the prospects of a tyranny of the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Replace "tyranny of the majority" with "democracy" and you'll be closer to the truth. Insofar as the critical issues are open to debate, a democratic process if far more likely to achieve a good solution than judicial fiat. If you read some of the arguments pro and con here on this board, you'll see that people are much more concerned with ethical issues and practical implications, not tenuous judicial constructions of penumbras and emanations that form an implied right to privacy. The real issue is how the competing policy consequences and moral obligations ought to be balanced out, and that sort of thing is a job for legislatures.