Regulated human reproduction

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah.

Well then you're just wrong for more reasons than I care to point out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, clearly my prediction about the outcome of the vote was wrong.

Nonetheless, this idea is evil.

Who are you to say that someone's life isn't worth living? And if you can, why don't we go around to all the prisons and kill everyone there? Then round up all the homeless and put them out of their misery? Then the poor, then the unintelligent, then the physically unattractive, etc.?

At least some of you are honest enough to point out that the real reason to back this plan is to decrease the number of societally inconvenient people. It's hard to see how reducing your tax bill and the crime rate can justify this sort of barbaric, violent intrusion though.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
To those who disagree with the right to privacy constitutional law cases (because the right to privacy is nowhere in the constitution.) Would a Regulated Human Reproduction law be constituional? (keep in mind that laws banning contraception were held unconstitutional because of the right to privacy.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This was discussed on here a while ago. People oppose Roe because it relies upon a presumed fundamental right to have an abortion. There is no evidence that such a right was intended to be part of the Constitution. It is much clearer that a right to have children is a fundamental right.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
People oppose Roe because it relies upon a presumed fundamental right to have an abortion

[/ QUOTE ]

Roe, like other reproductive rights cases, relies on the right to privacy. Framing it as a "fundamental right to have an abortion" is just a disingenuous way to attack the proposition.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no evidence that such a right was intended to be part of the Constitution. It is much clearer that a right to have children is a fundamental right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous. It is only more clear if you frame the issue in the silly way that you have (right to have children v. fundamental right to an abortion.) If you frame the issue in an intellectually honest way there is no difference. How about a fundamental right to determine if you are going to have children. A fundamental right to determine your own reproductive destiny, so to speak. It would be like framing the contraception issue as: Is there a fundamental constitutional right to wrap your penis in plastic wrap vs. is there a fundamental right to privacy which extends to an individual's decision to purchase/use contraception.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Roe, like other reproductive rights cases, relies on the right to privacy. Framing it as a "fundamental right to have an abortion" is just a disingenuous way to attack the proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is. The fundamental rights language is also outlined in a very influential 3-justice concurrence in Griswold, the case that established the "right to privacy." Because the swing votes in that case were a disingenuous group opposed to reproductive freedom.

[ QUOTE ]
Ridiculous. It is only more clear if you frame the issue in the silly way that you have (right to have children v. fundamental right to an abortion.) If you frame the issue in an intellectually honest way there is no difference. How about a fundamental right to determine if you are going to have children. A fundamental right to determine your own reproductive destiny, so to speak. It would be like framing the contraception issue as: Is there a fundamental constitutional right to wrap your penis in plastic wrap vs. is there a fundamental right to privacy which extends to an individual's decision to purchase/use contraception.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, everyone who disagrees with your arbitrary limitations on the scope of the right in question is intellectually dishonest? I recognize that you can disagree about the scope of the right. Judicial conservatives argue that these implied rights should be read as narrowly as possible to avoid overreaching.

There are many levels of broadness that could have been applied in Griswold:
-You might frame the condom question as the right to reproductive choice.
-It could be interpreted overbroadly as whether anything done in the bedroom (drugs, murders, etc.) ought to be free from state law.
-I choose to interpret the question as whether married couples have a right to engage in non-procreative sexual conduct.
-You could read it too narrowly as the right to wrap your penis in a plastic bag.

The moral of the story, depending on your intelligence, is either: a. everyone who disagrees is intellectually dishonest and is changing the terms of the argument unfairly; or b. people who can set the terms of an argument, such as judges, have enormous power.

[mackthefork]

flowing through those Republican veins? Good to see common sense from the dark side anyways. Good post.

Regards Mack

[HopeydaFish]

The eugenics program in Canada took place in the 30's and 40's in Alberta. It had nothing to do with sterilizing the poor, though. Those who were sterilized were those in institutions: the mentally handicapped, those with mentla illness, those with birth defects, etc... The belief was that they could eliminate all the 'undesireable' elements from the gene pool.

Many of the people who were sterilized sued the government and received compensation. Those who received the most compensation were those who were wrongly classified as "retarded" and those who were mentally ill but were later successfully treated for their mental illness.

[elwoodblues]

No, it is intellectually dishonest because there is a line of cases with a common thread/theme. There is a thread of a right to privacy, or (slightly more narrowly) the right to reproductive freedom. To not acknowledge that line of cases (and frame the issue in Roe as the "fundamental right to have an abortion") is either intellectually dishonest or unintelligent --- your choice.

[ QUOTE ]
So, everyone who disagrees with your arbitrary limitations on the scope of the right in question is intellectually dishonest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only those who ignore the history leading up to the case.

[ QUOTE ]
Judicial conservatives argue that these implied rights should be read as narrowly as possible to avoid overreaching.


[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't lead to the issue being "Is there a fundamental right to an abortion." Rather, the issue becomes: does the (already established) fundamental right to privacy extend to the decision to have an abortion.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it is intellectually dishonest because there is a line of cases with a common thread/theme. There is a thread of a right to privacy, or (slightly more narrowly) the right to reproductive freedom. To not acknowledge that line of cases (and frame the issue in Roe as the "fundamental right to have an abortion") is either intellectually dishonest or unintelligent --- your choice.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not questioning the existence of a line of cases, I'm questioning its validity. Roe is flawed because it uses the wrong approach to the question. As I mentioned earlier, I believe the fundamental rights approach is much more objective and desirable. If saying that is intellectually dishonest, then baby I don't want to be intellectually honest.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If saying that is intellectually dishonest, then baby I don't want to be intellectually honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Success [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Olof]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who the hell has the right to tell me I can't have kids?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are an irresponsible deadbeat, I think that innocent responsible people should, as long as they are forced at gunpoint to support your children through tax-funded welfare, definitely be allowed to have a say regarding your future reproduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the answer to government oppression is more government oppression? If people are being forced at gunpoint to support someone else, wouldn't it be better to stop forcing people to support others rather than to place restrictions on the supported people?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a badly chosen example. However, I don't see why you call it oppression. There is no right to have a bunch of children and then letting them starve, thus the government wouldn't be violating any right if they stopped people who did this from reproducing further.