Griswold v. Connecticut

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LCMS_No_More said:
I think probable cause issues apply. For example, if a person is walking down the street smoking a pipe and the smoke smells…different, that’s probable cause. If a person is stopped for some other legitimate reason and they have red eyes, obvious cottonmouth and are asking for Doritos, that’s probable cause.

It’s a bad interpretation of privacy to say that a person can kill the child within them because it’s “their own business.” What about the unborn child’s business?
Click to expand...
Whick brings me to my point – abortion is no more an issue of “privacy” than any other form of murder.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
I think probable cause issues apply. For example, if a person is walking down the street smoking a pipe and the smoke smells…different, that’s probable cause. If a person is stopped for some other legitimate reason and they have red eyes, obvious cottonmouth and are asking for Doritos, that’s probable cause.

It’s a bad interpretation of privacy to say that a person can kill the child within them because it’s “their own business.” What about the unborn child’s business?
Click to expand...
Of course probable cause would matter, but that is irrelevant to my question. Also, I didn’t bring up abortion…though “their own business” doesn’t cut it as an argument.

Why isn’t illegal drug use/posession “their own business?” Why isn’t illegal weapon ownership and use for target practice “their own business?” That is my point. If a state wanted to ban contraceptive pills and/or devices, I don’t see how the “right to privacy” would apply to those items while it doesn’t apply to illegal drugs, chemicals, etc.
 
rlg94086 said:
Of course probable cause would matter, but that is irrelevant to my question. Also, I didn’t bring up abortion…though “their own business” doesn’t cut it as an argument.

Why isn’t illegal drug use/posession “their own business?” Why isn’t illegal weapon ownership and use for target practice “their own business?” That is my point. If a state wanted to ban contraceptive pills and/or devices, I don’t see how the “right to privacy” would apply to those items while it doesn’t apply to illegal drugs, chemicals, etc.
Click to expand...
Aside from the misapplication of the guarantee to abortion and perhaps in my own job (which has nothing whatsoever to do with abortions or even the medical field) where the identity of a person filing a complaint is confidential under penalty of fine and jail, I can think of few actual applications of California’s Constitutional privacy guarantee.
 
LCMS_No_More said:
Aside from the misapplication of the guarantee to abortion and perhaps in my own job (which has nothing whatsoever to do with abortions or even the medical field) where the identity of a person filing a complaint is confidential under penalty of fine and jail, I can think of few actual applications of California’s Constitutional privacy guarantee.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

But, again, I didn’t bring up abortion…I was talking about contraception, which is what Griswold v. Connecticut is all about. You obviously have a one-track mind…thinkin’ like a Protestant. 😉
 
rlg94086 said:
Agreed.

But, again, I didn’t bring up abortion…I was talking about contraception, which is what Griswold v. Connecticut is all about. You obviously have a one-track mind…thinkin’ like a Protestant. 😉
Click to expand...
Well, considering the single-mindedness on the abortion issue around here, it’s easy to fall prey to it. I must be ever more vigilant. 🙂

When it comes to what’s going on in your own house, there’s little the state can do unless it involves victimizing another person (i.e., child abuse, sexual crimes, murder, slavery, etc.) or a blatant violation of the law (i.e., using a house as a weed farm). Generally speaking, if a person is smoking weed, using the pill or a condom or even having an orgy in their own home and the people outside can’t look in to see it, the state can do nothing about it.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Roe V Wade was based on a right to privacy found "emanating from the penumbra of the 14th Amendment.

Here is the first clause of the 14th Amendment:

(My emphasis.)

Maybe we should stop appointing justices who cannot read plain English.
Click to expand...
Person =/= Human…

How many time must one mention that?
 
mapleoak said:
That is because abortion happens to be the single biggest social injustice and plague affecting the world today.
Click to expand...
What about poverty? What about the current high prices of commodities? Let’s not become monomanaically focused on abortion.
 
wabrams said:
So those things trump the murder of a defenseless child?
Click to expand...
You say “child.” It just shows the bias of people who are “pro-life” have. And yes it does trump the “murder” of a “defenseless child”. Poverty causes suffering… and you probably believe that the “child’s” (I prefer to call it a “fetus”) soul would go to heaven and not suffer. I do think we should place a higher priority on mitigating suffering than on focusing on abortion.
 
ribozyme said:
You say “child.” It just shows the bias of people who are “pro-life” have. And yes it does trump the “murder” of a “defenseless child”. Poverty causes suffering… and you probably believe that the “child’s” (I prefer to call it a “fetus”) soul would go to heaven and not suffer. I do think we should place a higher priority on mitigating suffering than on focusing on abortion.
Click to expand...
First of all, it’s presumptious to tell us what we believe.

Second, you beat the drum for killing the innocent – who are just as human as you are.

Third, do you have a job yet?😉
 
ribozyme said:
What about poverty? What about the current high prices of commodities?
Click to expand...
Yes, much of what causes poverty in the world is social injustice. Poverty itself is not social injustice. And being poor is not a graver evil than murder.
Let’s not become monomanaically focused on abortion.
Click to expand...
monomanaically?
We do what we can to help the poor and tirelessly crusade for the unborn, rather than saying goofy things like “You shouldn’t be working to end abortion if you are not helping the poor”.
 
mapleoak said:
Yes, much of what causes poverty in the world is social injustice. Poverty itself is not social injustice. And being poor is not a graver evil than murder.
monomanaically?
We do what we can to help the poor and tirelessly crusade for the unborn, rather than saying goofy things like “You shouldn’t be working to end abortion if you are not helping the poor”.
Click to expand...
You know, if I had a monomanical compulsion to berate other people for not helping the poor, I’d go out and get a job, so I could pull my share of the load.😉
 
vern_humphrey said:
You know, if I had a monomanical compulsion to berate other people for not helping the poor, I’d go out and get a job, so I could pull my share of the load.😉
Click to expand...
I’ll see if I can get a job from the Obama campaign during the summer.
 
mapleoak said:
Yes, much of what causes poverty in the world is social injustice. Poverty itself is not social injustice. And being poor is not a graver evil than murder.
monomanaically?
We do what we can to help the poor and tirelessly crusade for the unborn, rather than saying goofy things like “You shouldn’t be working to end abortion if you are not helping the poor”.
Click to expand...
I really do not see why I should believe that inchoate human life should be deemed as sacrosanct. It is not the case that the born will live in a poverty-free utopia where everyone is impervious from its unpleasant effects. Instead those “lucky” enough to born will learn that life is rather cruel, copiously filled with suffering, and is rather unfair. If I was going to go to heaven (I do not know how many people believe this here) if I was aborted by my mother, I could say that I would prefer to be aborted (as a “defenseless child”) than to live here.

It should be a higher ethical priority to mitigate the concomitant suffering in human life than castigating abortion
 
ribozyme said:
I really do not see why I should believe that inchoate human life should be deemed as sacrosanct. It is not the case that the born will live in a poverty-free utopia where everyone is impervious from its unpleasant effects. Instead those “lucky” enough to born will learn that life is rather cruel, copiously filled with suffering, and is rather unfair. If I was going to go to heaven (I do not know how many people believe this here) if I was aborted by my mother, I could say that I would prefer to be aborted (as a “defenseless child”) than to live here.

It should be a higher ethical priority to mitigate the concomitant suffering in human life than castigating abortion
Click to expand...
I thought you started this thread to discuss Griswold v Connecticut…you know “right to privacy”…contraception… 🤷

Was that just a ruse to start yet another thread discussing abortion versus poverty? What do they have to do with Griswold v Connecticut?
 
rlg94086 said:
I thought you started this thread to discuss Griswold v Connecticut…you know “right to privacy”…contraception… 🤷

Was that just a ruse to start yet another thread discussing abortion versus poverty? What do they have to do with Griswold v Connecticut?
Click to expand...
Sorry but the problem of evil is an issue that I feel strongly about and it is the main reason why I rejected theism when I was younger.

And to segue, I believe that privacy is a right. Of course, some freedom* from *the government is necessary.

But the main issue that I wanted to discuss was that was to see if contraception should also be banned too. I wonder if we should also work on an amendment against contraception. In other threads you wanted an amendment that protects the rights of the unborn. But in my view, contraception should not be banned as it is victimless crime. Using condoms is compatible with the harm principle.
 
ribozyme said:
Sorry but the problem of evil is an issue that I feel strongly about and it is the main reason why I rejected a form of theism when I was younger.

And to segue, I believe that privacy is a right. Of course, some freedom* from *the government is necessary.

But the main issue that I wanted to discuss was that was to see if contraception should also be banned too. I wonder if we should also work on an amendment against contraception. In other threads you wanted an amendment that protects the rights of the unborn. But in my view, contraception should not be banned as it is victimless crime. Using condoms is compatible with the harm priniciple.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you use the word “some.” So, you only believe in privacy on some things but not on others? The key question is ‘who gets to decide the level of privacy?’ From a constitutional standpoint, it is not the Supreme Court. Rather, such issues should be left up to the states.

I think Griswold v Connecticut should be overturned, and I have no problem with the banning of artificial contraception. However, we are much, much further away from that reality than the possibility of banning abortion. Also, abortion is a much, much greater evil than contraception. The absolute evil of killing of an unborn child is something that a greater number of people can agree on, and I would definitely prefer to spend my resources on pro-life efforts, poverty, etc. before trying to ban contraception.
 
Griswold v. Connecticut dealt with a “marital” right to privacy. the Court held that a married couple had the right, within the context of their marriage, to used contraceptives. The “marital” part was thrown out a few years later in Eisenstadt v. Baird when the court ruled that individuals had an individual right to privacy allowing the individual to purchase and use contraceptives. This, in turn, paved the way for Roe v. Wade. The point is that the right to privacy enunciated in Griswold is very different than that in Eisenstadt or in Roe. Griswold recognized the marital relationship. Eisenstadt, Roe and their progeny do not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top