From: mccullou@cae.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Pro Choice Question
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 21 Nov 92 17:51:49 CST

Several people have posted articles not liking my statement about the
constitution (Which I will reprint here).  Instead of replying to them
individually, I will try to respond to all at once to let you all flame
me on one single thread making this easier on me and people's kill files.

I posted:
>People use the constitution for too much.  It is a foundation, not
>the end all.  If people want abortion legal or outlawed, pass a law.
>Don't try to read it into the constitution.  Of course I would never
>last as a judge, if the consitution doesn't make a reference to it,
>it isn't in the constitution.  A horrible attitude I know, but it is
>real life.

The first challenge claimed (roughly, I am trying to keep this shortish)
that the consitution is used in reaction to state laws.  This is not
the case that I have seen.  What I have seen, and I will use the best
example of all (abortion) is that a state tries to pass a law, and
the special interest group rams it through to the supreme court.  However,
the supreme court is suppossed to interpret the constitution and the laws,
not make moral judgements on something separate.  I would much rather
see that law if someone doesn't like it, to be put on referendum.  That is
a fair way of seeing how people feel about the law isn't it?  What I am
objecting to, is how people try to twist the constitution until it says
what people want it to say.  It is not a work of poetry to be interpreted
in a myriad of ways.  Maybe the Supreme court should just be somewhat more
selective about cases it chooses to take.  (They can choose which cases
to review).  That would help some.

The second challence basically stated that all things are legal until
declared illegal.  I agree with this.  What was meant by the statement
"If people want abortion legal or outlawed..." was if they want to pass
a law protecting it or banning it.  I do favor actually reading the
constitution for what it says, not what it can be twisted to say.

Another challenge that I forgot to save and print out basically tried to
claim that abortion was covered by the ninth amendment.  My counter is
a simple one word answer: suicide.  Suicide is illegal in many states,
if you attempt and fail, you are normally comitted to a hospital for
the _criminally_ insane.  According to your interpretation of the
9th amendment, such a law is illegal.  Well, the 9th amendment is 
intended to protect the individual, but how does it cover something that
could be construed as murder?  I am not declaring that I feel one way
or another, I will stay out of that, but the anti-abortion activists 
frequently claim that abortion is murder of the fetus.  This covers
the second challenge also.  If it is decided that the fetus is alive
and has all the rights of an infant, then abortion would be considered
infanticide, and the woman would be guilty of aiding and abetting homicide.
That places it outside the ninth amendment.  The ninth amendment doesn't
talk about issues like that, it is trying to talk about things we today
tend to take for granted.  

Any more flames?  Well, I do have this brand new fire proof suit.
:)M^2

Newsgroups: alt.atheism