Re: Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Fri Feb 07 2003 - 13:09:35 MST

  • Next message: Rafal Smigrodzki: "PD"

    In a message dated 2/7/2003 12:28:05 PM Central Standard Time, lee@piclab.com
    writes: The ninth and tenth amendments are very clear, and they were put
    there for a very good reason: because the framers knew the moment they
    started putting human rights on paper, some idiot would come along and say
    "This one wasn't written down, so it must not exist".

    Lee, you are absolutely right. We do have those amendments. I have run into
    them spcifically in the study of Roe vs Wade and later in the case of a man
    that was fired as a security risk based on conversations he had in his bed
    room with his wife.
           The problem with Roe vs Wade as I recall it was that if you look back
    into American & English legal history it is not at all clear if that is a
    right that individuals have traditionally had or not. There is a lot of
    evidence that if the abortion was done before quickening it was okay. After
    quickening I don't remember so much evidence.
           The other problem I saw was that abortion historically has not been
    something that folks discussed a lot so discovering past practice isn't that
    easy.
           In the case of the man fired as a security risk it is clear that the
    conversation of a man & wife in their bedroom is not admissable in court. It
    was also plain that the conversation was made public by the illegal act of
    some 3rd party. In other words the couple had not voluntarily made their
    conversation public either deliberately nor through negligence.
           As a student I had to decide and write a paper on the bedroom
    conversation. I found for the man that was fired. As it was a live issue
    the Supreme Court later issued an opinion backing me up -- clever weren't
    they? <VBG>
    Ron h.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 07 2003 - 13:12:14 MST