Greetings:

She's a lawyer and she thinks abortion rights are in the Constitution?

11B40.
Of course. Lawyers aren't taught anything about right or wrong. They're taught to argue for their client's position, or their own in absence of a client.

That their position on a subject could be wrong when compared against some external metric is a notion that law school didn't prepare them for.

Evidently you gentlemen are unfamiliar with the IXth Amendment. You should read the document again and try to figure out what the words mean.

We do not live in a country with enumerated rights. We live in a country with a limited government.

M. Simon,
We certainly do live in a country with a (theoretically) limited government.

The tenth Amendment says that powers not delegated to the feds are rights of the people or powers of the states.

I don't see the power to make abortion legal or illegal anywhere in the constitution, or in the section describing the supreme court.

At best, the federal government should be silent on the issue. Abortion was legal in several states before Roe vs Wade.

Then a bunch of black-robed tyrants decided that it was time for them to sieze a new federal power, the power to decree certain medical procedures not previously mentioned in the constitution are suddenly a right that all states must observe.

They simply tossed in some circular logic about the 9th amendment and privacy to justify the decision they wanted.

It then became etched in stone somewhere that it was the inalienable right of a woman to have a hose stuck up her hoo-ha and have an inconvienent but predictable consequence of certain actions vacuumed out.

df,

Are you seriously telling me that you do not have a right to be free of government intrusion as a inalienable right? I think the IVth Amendment argues against that.

Now as to whether Roe was correctly decided (the States Rights issue) I'd be inclined to agree. However, I'm not unhappy with the current situation.

IMO the best way (least social friction) to eliminate abortion is to convince women not to have them.

Of course if you want to make it a government/political issue and help get Democrats elected - have at it. I'm sure you will approve of the results.

M. Simon,
I certainly agree that it's best for governments to get involved in my personal life as little as possible.

I simply think that Roe vs Wade was incorrectly decided, and that the prior condition was a fine example of federalism in action- different states taking different stances on a variety of issues. With freedom of movement, you're quite able to join those that agree with you, or run for office to try to change the law as you see it.

We seem to be generally in agreement as to the particular defect in the particular judgement, so there's no need to argue further. While I find abortions morally bankrupt, I'm not interested in federal action to outlaw them.

I don't regard the current debate on abortion to generally purposeful or honest- it's generally a proxy for other issues.

Overall, I'm certainly going to support McCain/Palin. I'm being argumentative because I enjoy it doing so.