3 ms·

There's an argument to be made there, but it's most certainly NOT "explicit". The 9th does say that there are other rights, that's pretty much its whole point.

There's an argument to be made there, but it's most certainly NOT "explicit". The 9th does say that there are other rights, that's pretty much its whole point. But it absolutely does not "explicitly" mention abortion or anything else. You also ignored my example of 2A, or the current controversy (for which I haven't yet read the argument, but I assume that the 10th Amendment plays into it in exactly the same way you're arguing for the 9th).

ceejayoz 4y ago
It is explicit in the Constitution that people have rights not listed in it. Those unenumerated rights are, by their nature, not listed, but I find it hard to credit the idea that Americans don't have a right to privacy. > You also ignored my example of 2A Sure, because everyone does. The number of people arguing bans on personal ownership of nuclear arms are unconstitutional is... small. Even originalist/textualists seem to agree it's by no means absolute.
- CWuestefeld 4y ago
  > > You also ignored my example of 2A > Sure, because everyone does. I don't think this is a winning argument. The fact that one argument - and one thought important enough to enumerate actually explicitly - is frequently ignored doesn't support the idea that another unenumerated one exists, and quite possibly the opposite. More specifically, most Roe supporters have been ignoring the "bodily autonomy" philosophy all along, and more recently even going directly against it. It would seem that it's no more absolute than you believe 2A to be. As I wrote elsewhere in this thread: 1. Have you taken to the streets protesting when people, even after consulting with their doctor, have been forbidden the right to use marijuana medicinally? 2. Do you oppose the authority of the FDA to determine what medications Americans should be allowed to use, such that we should be able to use a pharmaceutical even if the FDA says it's too dangerous, or not effective enough? 3. Have you even argued against the authority of the government to force individuals to take covid-19 vaccinations? If you answer "no" to any of the above, then I assert that your claims to believe in the "bodily autonomy" argument behind Roe is false.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Roe doesn't claim bodily autonomy, nor have I in this comments thread. Where are you getting that idea?
    - CWuestefeld 4y ago
      Roe talks about this in terms of "privacy", saying that a woman in consultation with her doctor has the right to determine what's the best course of treatment; the government doesn't have the authority to take abortion off the table. So, how does the government get the authority to take marijuana off the table? How do they get the authority to take any other treatment off the table? And how do they have the authority to say that vaccination is the only acceptable course when covid-19 is rampant? This all seems to be the same argument, so why don't I hear very many Roe supporters arguing for the freedoms I referenced above, or at least providing answers to my questions? What's the principled line of philosophy that supports a freedom to abortion without also recognizing a right to medicinal marijuana or passing up a covid-19 show (when either is done under doctor supervision)?
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        > Roe talks about this in terms of "privacy", saying that a woman in consultation with her doctor has the right to determine what's the best course of treatment; the government doesn't have the authority to take abortion off the table. Roe also makes it quite clear it's not absolute: "A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation." > So, how does the government get the authority to take marijuana off the table? For the same reason as Roe highlights above; that the right to privacy is not absolute. I think you'll find the leftist position on marijuana is fairly similar to the leftist position on abortion, though. > And how do they have the authority to say that vaccination is the only acceptable course when covid-19 is rampant? They don't, and they haven't.

ceejayoz 4y ago

It is explicit in the Constitution that people have rights not listed in it. Those unenumerated rights are, by their nature, not listed, but I find it hard to credit the idea that Americans don't have a right to privacy. > You also ignored my example of 2A Sure, because everyone does. The number of people arguing bans on personal ownership of nuclear arms are unconstitutional is... small. Even originalist/textualists seem to agree it's by no means absolute.

CWuestefeld 4y ago
> > You also ignored my example of 2A > Sure, because everyone does. I don't think this is a winning argument. The fact that one argument - and one thought important enough to enumerate actually explicitly - is frequently ignored doesn't support the idea that another unenumerated one exists, and quite possibly the opposite. More specifically, most Roe supporters have been ignoring the "bodily autonomy" philosophy all along, and more recently even going directly against it. It would seem that it's no more absolute than you believe 2A to be. As I wrote elsewhere in this thread: 1. Have you taken to the streets protesting when people, even after consulting with their doctor, have been forbidden the right to use marijuana medicinally? 2. Do you oppose the authority of the FDA to determine what medications Americans should be allowed to use, such that we should be able to use a pharmaceutical even if the FDA says it's too dangerous, or not effective enough? 3. Have you even argued against the authority of the government to force individuals to take covid-19 vaccinations? If you answer "no" to any of the above, then I assert that your claims to believe in the "bodily autonomy" argument behind Roe is false.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Roe doesn't claim bodily autonomy, nor have I in this comments thread. Where are you getting that idea?
  - CWuestefeld 4y ago
    Roe talks about this in terms of "privacy", saying that a woman in consultation with her doctor has the right to determine what's the best course of treatment; the government doesn't have the authority to take abortion off the table. So, how does the government get the authority to take marijuana off the table? How do they get the authority to take any other treatment off the table? And how do they have the authority to say that vaccination is the only acceptable course when covid-19 is rampant? This all seems to be the same argument, so why don't I hear very many Roe supporters arguing for the freedoms I referenced above, or at least providing answers to my questions? What's the principled line of philosophy that supports a freedom to abortion without also recognizing a right to medicinal marijuana or passing up a covid-19 show (when either is done under doctor supervision)?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > Roe talks about this in terms of "privacy", saying that a woman in consultation with her doctor has the right to determine what's the best course of treatment; the government doesn't have the authority to take abortion off the table. Roe also makes it quite clear it's not absolute: "A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation." > So, how does the government get the authority to take marijuana off the table? For the same reason as Roe highlights above; that the right to privacy is not absolute. I think you'll find the leftist position on marijuana is fairly similar to the leftist position on abortion, though. > And how do they have the authority to say that vaccination is the only acceptable course when covid-19 is rampant? They don't, and they haven't.