Abortion and Liberty?

[dannno]

There is no liberty in forcing a female to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Liberty is all about personal choice and responsibility for yourself and the choices you make. If a woman choses to have unprotected sex while she is ovulating and pregnancy occurs.

So you are ok with abortions in the case of rape or incest? Because that leads to a contradictory position as well.

 

[playboymommy]

Liberty is all about personal choice and responsibility for yourself and the choices you make. If a woman choses to have unprotected sex while she is ovulating and pregnancy occurs. The problem isn't that we are not giving women a choice, the problem is that they will not accept responsibility for their actions and we are acting like abortion is just simply another choice for this woman to make, effecting only her life.

Why is it that once the child is born parents no longer have a free choice? If I no longer want to care for a child why can I not then have a late term abortion because I do not like the current situation I am in?

Then we get into people arguing that a fetus is not yet a life. WHO defines that? Isn't it odd that when scientists refer to finding new 'life' at the bottom of the ocean or some tropical place this new life may just indeed be a cell or small organism, yet it is defined as life. However when it comes to abortion, it is not alive because it's not breathing, or yet it is not human. When an egg is fertilized it has no other option, it will become a human. Once that fertilization happens the process of life has begun as those cells are becoming the only thing they can possibly become, a human life.

Now there are those that go extremely in the opposite way and then say "well are you going to say that jacking off is abortion". No, you can't because your not getting rid of an embryo or fertilization that is already on it's way to becoming life.

The problem isn't womans choice or her liberty at all. It's that they need to realize they made a choice to have unprotected sex and deal with the reprecussions of that. As a result we need to perhaps have better sexual education.

We also need to start taking responsibility for our actions. Instead of trying to play the helpless victim that the government has taught us to do so well.

I was on birth control when I got pregnant with my daughter Ceresa. Women get pregnant on birth control, many women can't take birth control, condoms break, and some women get pregnant even when they have their tubes tied. The mindset that all women who have abortions are irresponsible is wrong.

When every child in the world is treated with dignity, respect and has basic human rights only then would I support extra restrictions on abortion. However I feel it a very complex area. The links between female fertility, poverty and governmental/patriarchal/religious control are well documented and still apparent today. I would never support a rule that allowed the butchery of back street abortionists and allowed patriarchal forces to ensure that women were kept in the domestic sphere, reliant on their husbands for financial support - I realize of course that the church instigated this control hence why women now still suffer victimization if they are seen to be promiscuous. Fertility and social control are so interlinked the lines have disappeared rather than merely blurred.

In my mind we are missing the point - we do not teach our children to treat sex and reproduction with respect- I am not advocating no sex before marriage - but I am advocating that we have to stop letting young women seeing themselves as sexual beings from the age of 8. We allow children to be sexualized - makeup - thongs for 9 year olds, WTF? Then we hit kids with the message of you shouldn't have sex and when they do we cover it up by giving them emergency contraception and not dealing with the issue that many youngsters have dangerous sex because they feel so shit about themselves they think it is the only way to get affection. The media has a lot to answer for and so do we adults for allowing this situation to be in perpetual motion.

I think abortion is used here to cover up for a decadent society that neglects its youth and fails to allow them to reach adulthood in a natural way - they are bombarded with gratuitous images of sex.. no wonder the abortion rate is soaring.

The issue of abortion is not merely one of right or wrong but it is about how we as a society protect each other and our youth.... until we adults refuse to allow the media's manipulation of what being an adult is - and using sex as a cheap tool to gain ratings etc the abortion rate will rise. However a legalized system is preferable to terrified women bartering with some bent doctor or medic to have a procedure carried out that has the potential to kill both the woman and baby in the most agonizing and hideous circumstances.

To my mind, abortion is the lesser of two evils, I have no wish to watch another battered, fucked up kid crying on the streets because their mother mistreats them and it could have been avoided. When every child has enough to eat, is loved and cared for, only then could we think of perhaps limiting abortion, but women should have autonomy over their own fertility and bodies.

Regarding the option of adoption, the legality of adoption in this country absolutely stinks and unless you are articulate and can do battle with pseudo middle class liberalism adoption is out of the question. They usually hound any mother who is trying to give her child away and even then they refuse to take the child immediately forcing the mother through a series of very very harrowing meetings because:
a). Women are demonized if they are seen to be " giving their child up" because of the myth that women should always be maternal.
b). Social services do not have enough money to cope with the battered and raped children, nevermind giving proper time and counselling to a mother who is in difficulty.
c). In some cases the psychological effect of having a child is far too damaging for a woman.

It is also worth noting that even when abortion was illegal, rich women still managed to gain the procedure because they had the resources and contacts to circumnavigate the barbaric and patriarchal system, whilst their poorer peers were butchered on dining room tables, left to bleed and in some cases die from septicemia whilst being terrified of gaining medical help because they would have been slung in jail and made a social pariah. Abortion and fertility is far more complex than merely whether the fetus has rights... we are talking about the inherent control of women, between the church and the state our system has never ever taken female contraception and fertility rights seriously. Which is why you stil have the scenario where some young women appear to be having children that they neither want nor can care for.

If abortion is made illegal under our current social values and systems you allow many women who are already disenfranchised to become victims of butchery, manipulation and social control.

In the countries where abortion is illegal and it is usually a law that has been implemented by the church there is no notion that it is to save the fetus, it is just about social control. When you have pro life campaigners bombing abortion clinics and demonizing women for making choices about their own fertility then supporting the death penalty surely the question arises as to whether it really is the concern for the fetus rather than the social control of women.

 

[playboymommy]

So you are ok with abortions in the case of rape or incest? Because that leads to a contradictory position as well.

Well said danno. It's wrong to force a woman to have unwanted sex but it's fine to force her to carry the unwanted pregnancy to term?!? Absolute hypocrisy. When Santorum said he was against abortion even in those cases during the last debate it infuriated me. Just another patriarchal misogynistic homophobe wanting control of a woman's autonomy.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

John Adams clearly understood that no contract between governing body comprised of the free people who elect that governing body would remain free if such people could not recognize the natural endowment of liberty which does not derive from any man but from God. The protection of life in a moral stance is vital to the establishing of a contract between governing body and the people it serves to protect and uphold that recognized protection of life and liberty at an individual level for all.This was a direct perspective of John Adams quote and it does not endorse theocracy, it just simply bluntly states that an unchanging morality is required to uphold life and liberty.

 

[Cake]

Morality is subjective.

I disagree. We may have different understandings of what morality is, but I believe there is an absolute moral standard. Not everyone may agree that the standard is what I believe it is, but ultimately for it to be morality there must be some standard. Perhaps not everyone knows or understands it, but morality implies a standard.

Frankly, I think if you agree with the next two sentences of my previous comments, our apparent disagreement is irrelevant. Nonetheless, I disagree on the notion that morality is a constant or static presence by nature. The concepts of right and wrong, or morality, were created by mankind. The idea that inflicting pain or death onto another living organism of any kind, does not appear to be present in nature where might makes right. One can decide that killing, for instance, is wrong. I would morally agree, however, we must kill to live. Our food is made up of life. Even taking into account a person that decides vegetarianism is the solution, another could even consider killing plants immoral. To you or even I, that may seem a stretch of morality, but as you allude to the possibility that another may not understand it in the same way, morality varies from one individual to another.

While it is possible that morality exists as static, as some may say reality does, it relies purely on our understanding of it and the point I wish to emphasize the most is that no one can know if their version of morality is in agreement with what true morality is. Therefore, we should neither base or make law on the premise of morality, which as an unknowable amounts to little more than a personal religious institution.

The government has no business setting moral norms. The government only has the responsibility to ensure that one's actions do not deprive another of liberty.

I agree on all points in this quote!

That was, of course, the point I was trying to express.

It is about what point the two can be viewed as separate persons with separate rights.

It is a unique and separate individual once it has its own unique DNA, which is the zygote stage. The zygote is the single celled stage right after the two reproductive cells combine. It is alive and unique at that point

Ah, but it is not so easy. If simply having "unique DNA" qualifies as a "separate individual" entitled to rights of personhood, how do you then differentiate cancerous human cells which also have "unique DNA"?

Trying to base it on consciousness or brain waves leaves too much up in the air, too many questions.

I did not bring up the "brain waves" suggestion. That was a comment of another poster.

Additionally, my test of "consciousness" is not necessarily a measure of actual consciousness, as I do not think medical science is that advanced. My reasoning is not that the level of consciousness can be determined, but rather we know that consciousness cannot exist without the presence of a brain. With human consciousness being the activity only a human brain is capable, the very minimum should be the presence of a brain. While we do not know if an existing brain is capable of consciousness, we do know that if there is no brain consciousness cannot be present.

In accordance with the determination that the human brain does not begin to develop until the 5th week of pregnancy, there is no basis to grant recognition of personhood.

However, a society under social contract should not create laws based on belief systems.

Not so keen on the whole "social contract" thing, but I certainly would not want to have laws from religions other than mine set in place that would persecute me for having a different faith, so I agree that laws should not be based on religion, which is why the 1st Amendment protects us against having an official establishment of religion.

"Social Contract" is simply another name for Constitution. The rule of law, created by man, is a social contract.

One's religious beliefs and morals should not another's mundane liberty.

Correct, although again, abortion is not an issue of liberty. I would not stop people from having abortions, just as I do not try to stop people from other sins, nor would I send the law after such people. But that doesn't make it an issue of liberty -- the liberty issue is whether the life is allowed to exist. Liberty does not mean liberty to kill. Because at least in the spiritual sense, Karma will dish out a punishment. Being aborted is sometimes a way that Karmic punishments are dealt out...

And in case this point was not yet understood, I am against the use of force for violence. I'm against the use of force to conduct abortions, but I'm also against the use of force to prevent them. I'm against the use of force. This is why I am pro-life (but do not wish to use the force of law against others) and also against war and other forms of killing.

Abortion is certainly an issue of liberty. Until it is established that a second body of a "person" is involved, the issue remains the individual person's liberty over their own body.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Frankly, I think if you agree with the next two sentences of my previous comments, our apparent disagreement is irrelevant. Nonetheless, I disagree on the notion that morality is a constant or static presence by nature. The concepts of right and wrong, or morality, were created by mankind. The idea that inflicting pain or death onto another living organism of any kind, does not appear to be present in nature where might makes right. One can decide that killing, for instance, is wrong. I would morally agree, however, we must kill to live. Our food is made up of life. Even taking into account a person that decides vegetarianism is the solution, another could even consider killing plants immoral. To you or even I, that may seem a stretch of morality, but as you allude to the possibility that another may not understand it in the same way, morality varies from one individual to another.

While it is possible that morality exists as static, as some may say reality does, it relies purely on our understanding of it and the point I wish to emphasize the most is that no one can know if their version of morality is in agreement with what true morality is. Therefore, we should neither base or make law on the premise of morality, which as an unknowable amounts to little more than a personal religious institution.



That was, of course, the point I was trying to express.



Ah, but it is not so easy. If simply having "unique DNA" qualifies as a "separate individual" entitled to rights of personhood, how do you then differentiate cancerous human cells which also have "unique DNA"?



I did not bring up the "brain waves" suggestion. That was a comment of another poster.

Additionally, my test of "consciousness" is not necessarily a measure of actual consciousness, as I do not think medical science is that advanced. My reasoning is not that the level of consciousness can be determined, but rather we know that consciousness cannot exist without the presence of a brain. With human consciousness being the activity only a human brain is capable, the very minimum should be the presence of a brain. While we do not know if an existing brain is capable of consciousness, we do know that if there is no brain consciousness cannot be present.

In accordance with the determination that the human brain does not begin to develop until the 5th week of pregnancy, there is no basis to grant recognition of personhood.



"Social Contract" is simply another name for Constitution. The rule of law, created by man, is a social contract.




Abortion is certainly an issue of liberty. Until it is established that a second body of a "person" is involved, the issue remains the individual person's liberty over their own body.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
John Adams clearly understood that no contract between governing body comprised of the free people who elect that governing body would remain free if such people could not recognize the natural endowment of liberty which does not derive from any man but from God. The protection of life in a moral stance is vital to the establishing of a contract between governing body and the people it serves to protect and uphold that recognized protection of life and liberty at an individual level for all.This was a direct perspective of John Adams quote and it does not endorse theocracy, it just simply bluntly states that an unchanging morality is required to uphold life and liberty.

 

[Yieu]

Ah, but it is not so easy. If simply having "unique DNA" qualifies as a "separate individual" entitled to rights of personhood, how do you then differentiate cancerous human cells which also have "unique DNA"?

First of all, comparing an unborn child to cancer is offensive. Second of all, it is wholly inaccurate, because a zygote is a human and eventually grows to be an adult human, and cancer cells are not humans.

Therefore, the zygote having unique DNA certainly qualifies them as a separate individual. The comparison given is inaccurate and misleading.

Abortion is certainly an issue of liberty. Until it is established that a second body of a "person" is involved, the issue remains the individual person's liberty over their own body.

If abortion is only an issue of liberty until it can be established that a second body of a unique individual is involved, then we agree.

A separate individual exists at the zygote stage. Once there is a zygote, it is no longer a question of the woman's body or liberty, but of the child's liberty to exist.

 

[Ronulus]

Well said danno. It's wrong to force a woman to have unwanted sex but it's fine to force her to carry the unwanted pregnancy to term?!? Absolute hypocrisy. When Santorum said he was against abortion even in those cases during the last debate it infuriated me. Just another patriarchal misogynistic homophobe wanting control of a woman's autonomy.

I agree with you on some of your above posts. That we need to teach young people to respect sex and to be more knowledgeable towards it. As a society we have to change as well.

However people like to use rape and incest often. Those people should be punished for their actions, yet in those situations it is still a life forming in that pregnancy. We can not say that life starts at conception and then say 'well unless you are raped by someone'. That is the idea of liberty that you can not take part of it and leave another part behind, you have to accept it in its entirety. If we had more appropriate education and people didn't treat sex as a terrible thing we would likely end up with less rape.

You say you used birth control, good. However you know that there is still a risk of pregnancy. I also use condoms with my wife. Failure of these devices is not a common occurrence unless used in the wrong ways. Birth control pills, yes they are not always effective, but that doesn't change the fact that you know there is still a risk and that there are extra precautions you can take, and that isn't simply just 'do not have sex'.

Abortion and fertility is far more complex than merely whether the fetus has rights... we are talking about the inherent control of women, between the church and the state our system has never ever taken female contraception and fertility rights seriously. Which is why you stil have the scenario where some young women appear to be having children that they neither want nor can care for.

So that is what we need to change. We can do that and it will take time, but we should not resort to murder in the mean time.





You also spoke of children with bad parents. I know people who have bad parents, I have friends with bad parents. These kids did not grow up to be bad people or wish they were not alive.

 

[Cake]

First of all, comparing an unborn child to cancer is offensive. Second of all, it is wholly inaccurate, because a zygote is a human and eventually grows to be an adult human, and cancer cells are not humans.

Therefore, the zygote having unique DNA certainly qualifies them as a separate individual. The comparison given is inaccurate and misleading.

First of all, I did not formally make that comparison. In fact, I do not think an "unborn child" is comparable to cancer. I simply said that your definition, "unique DNA" applies to more than just a zygote, which is in fact a single human cell, existing within a woman's body.

I implore you to please revisit the original post in which an example is given involving a person being born with two bodies. Both bodies would be the result of two separate sperm entering an egg. Even if only one brain was formed of the two sperm, if there were two bodies, by your definition each would be a person entitled to liberty. So would you then say that a person with two bodies should not be able to remove the additional body, even though it would result in that body's death, that by your definition would be a "person"?

If abortion is only an issue of liberty until it can be established that a second body of a unique individual is involved, then we agree.

A separate individual exists at the zygote stage. Once there is a zygote, it is no longer a question of the woman's body or liberty, but of the child's liberty to exist.

This is not a discussion of the rights of "separate individuals" it is a discussion of the rights of "persons". Is a zygote human life? Yes, all human cells are human life. This is however, irrelevant. The subject is a matter of personhood, not human life. The Constitution does not afford rights to human life, or single cells; it applies to "persons". It is not I that is comparing a zygote to a cancerous cell, as you are the one that has assigned so broad a definition that your criteria does not differentiate between the two.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

There is no liberty in forcing a female to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

There is no liberty in forcing nature to be stripped of its course at conception as a human. When does a human retain value? The government would love to define that.

 

[Cake]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
John Adams clearly understood that no contract between governing body comprised of the free people who elect that governing body would remain free if such people could not recognize the natural endowment of liberty which does not derive from any man but from God. The protection of life in a moral stance is vital to the establishing of a contract between governing body and the people it serves to protect and uphold that recognized protection of life and liberty at an individual level for all.This was a direct perspective of John Adams quote and it does not endorse theocracy, it just simply bluntly states that an unchanging morality is required to uphold life and liberty.

Look, the Constitution is like a blueprint, or engineering design. It does not matter if an architect or engineer intends to design an airport but instead designs a train station. Truly, what the Founders, or any other person intended is not what is important. All the people that played a role in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution had different ideas about what it meant to them. It is only the final result that has importance. The only way we can observe and live under just law is to read the document as it is literally written. If something does not work, or is bad law, a process has been included to change it. For each moment, it should be observed as it is written, not as someone might have hoped it to be.

The fact of morality is that no two people have identical moral standards or values.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Look, the Constitution is like a blueprint, or engineering design. It does not matter if an architect or engineer intends to design an airport but instead designs a train station. Truly, what the Founders, or any other person intended is not what is important. All the people that played a role in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution had different ideas about what it meant to them. It is only the final result that has importance. The only way we can observe and live under just law is to read the document as it is literally written. If something does not work, or is bad law, a process has been included to change it. For each moment, it should be observed as it is written, not as someone might have hoped it to be.

The fact of morality is that no two people have identical moral standards or values.

As John Adams said the u.s. republic was established by and for a moral and religious people. If you want to go into the semantics of whether there should or should not be an establishment of small limited government then that is a whole other subject but the topic here is abortion and liberty. You simply cannot grant the government the authority to declare that life starts in the 3rd trimester.It is a contradiction to unalienable rights.

 

[Yieu]

First of all, I did not formally make that comparison. In fact, I do not think an "unborn child" is comparable to cancer. I simply said that your definition, "unique DNA" applies to more than just a zygote, which is in fact a single human cell, existing within a woman's body.

I implore you to please revisit the original post in which an example is given involving a person being born with two bodies. Both bodies would be the result of two separate sperm entering an egg. Even if only one brain was formed of the two sperm, if there were two bodies, by your definition each would be a person entitled to liberty. So would you then say that a person with two bodies should not be able to remove the additional body, even though it would result in that body's death, that by your definition would be a "person"?

You went on a bit of a tangent here, and complicated and strayed from the original question which I did answer. This was my answer:

Second of all, it is wholly inaccurate, because a zygote is a human and eventually grows to be an adult human, and cancer cells are not humans.

Therefore, the zygote having unique DNA certainly qualifies them as a separate individual. The comparison given is inaccurate and misleading.

This is not a discussion of the rights of "separate individuals" it is a discussion of the rights of "persons". Is a zygote human life? Yes, all human cells are human life. This is however, irrelevant. The subject is a matter of personhood, not human life. The Constitution does not afford rights to human life, or single cells; it applies to "persons". It is not I that is comparing a zygote to a cancerous cell, as you are the one that has assigned so broad a definition that your criteria does not differentiate between the two.

A "person" is only a legal fiction, which is why I am not talking about "persons" but instead I am talking about separate individuals. As far as I am concerned, the legal fiction known as a "person" has no bearing on this conversation. The only thing that matters as far as I am concerned is that the zygote is a distinct and separate individual from the mother.

 

[Cake]

As John Adams said the u.s. republic was established by and for a moral and religious people. If you want to go into the semantics of whether there should or should not be an establishment of small limited government then that is a whole other subject but the topic here is abortion and liberty. You simply cannot grant the government the authority to declare that life starts in the 3rd trimester.It is a contradiction to unalienable rights.

First of all, I did not mention the 3rd trimester. Perhaps you should read the original post.

There is no doubt a "person" has constitutional rights. It is the role of the government to determine personhood, which is a requirement that must be met to be afforded and entitled to rights.

 

[Yieu]

Look, the Constitution is like a blueprint, or engineering design. It does not matter if an architect or engineer intends to design an airport but instead designs a train station. Truly, what the Founders, or any other person intended is not what is important. All the people that played a role in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution had different ideas about what it meant to them. It is only the final result that has importance. The only way we can observe and live under just law is to read the document as it is literally written. If something does not work, or is bad law, a process has been included to change it. For each moment, it should be observed as it is written, not as someone might have hoped it to be.

The fact of morality is that no two people have identical moral standards or values.

If you read the Constitution word for word as it is written using the modern definitions of words, you could interpret it to mean all kinds of things that it does not mean.

The only way the Constitution can be read and understood is using the language of the time it was written, using the definitions of words at the time they were written, and the meanings behind the words that were meant by those who wrote them. If it is not read in this manner, then we are making up new meanings that were not imbued into the text, and you could cause the words to mean anything you want them to. And then the document loses all of its meaning.

 

[Cake]

You went on a bit of a tangent here, and complicated and strayed from the original question which I did answer. This was my answer:

Second of all, it is wholly inaccurate, because a zygote is a human and eventually grows to be an adult human, and cancer cells are not humans.

Therefore, the zygote having unique DNA certainly qualifies them as a separate individual. The comparison given is inaccurate and misleading.

A zygote potentially, but not always "eventually grows to be an adult human". A sperm and egg, separate in their own existence also share the same potential to become a person.

A "person" is only a legal fiction, which is why I am not talking about "persons" but instead I am talking about separate individuals. As far as I am concerned, the legal fiction known as a "person" has no bearing on this conversation. The only thing that matters as far as I am concerned is that the zygote is a distinct and separate individual from the mother.

 

[Cake]

A "person" is only a legal fiction, which is why I am not talking about "persons" but instead I am talking about separate individuals. As far as I am concerned, the legal fiction known as a "person" has no bearing on this conversation. The only thing that matters as far as I am concerned is that the zygote is a distinct and separate individual from the mother.

This is a discussion of law. Legal determination is the subject. So far, you have given no example of differentiation between one human cell and any other.

 

[Yieu]

A zygote potentially, but not always "eventually grows to be an adult human". A sperm and egg, separate in their own existence also share the same potential to become a person.

Uh... I didn't think I would have to spell it out this clearly, because it seems so self-evident. But I'll explain the difference more clearly:

A zygote is designed to grow into an adult human. That is its purpose, and whether it survives to do so is irrelevant. A cancer cell can never grow into an adult human. But a zygote is designed to, its purpose is, and it is made to grow to an adult human, and for this reason it qualifies for the protection of life afforded to adults.

Also, you mention a sperm and an egg. Alone, unfertilized, they hold zero potential for life. Only a fertilized egg holds potential for life. Sperm and unfertilized eggs cannot thus be held to the same standard as a fertilized egg.

Once the egg is fertilized, it is potential life. Once that fertilized egg becomes a zygote, it is a human life.

A fertilized chicken egg is just a young chicken.

A human zygote is just a young human.

This is a discussion of law. Legal determination is the subject. So far, you have given no example of differentiation between one human cell and any other.

I answer this above this quote.

 

[Cake]

If you read the Constitution word for word as it is written using the modern definitions of words, you could interpret it to mean all kinds of things that it does not mean.

The only way the Constitution can be read and understood is using the language of the time it was written, using the definitions of words at the time they were written, and the meanings behind the words that were meant by those who wrote them. If it is not read in this manner, then we are making up new meanings that were not imbued into the text, and you could cause the words to mean anything you want them to. And then the document loses all of its meaning.

I disagree.

Yes, we need to apply the definitions of the words in their context, or "time" as you put it, but that is the end of it.

An example is blacks are persons, and the Constitution grants explicit rights to persons. Of course, many Founders probably had no intention of granting rights to blacks, but because they meant something different the law was not observed as it was written and creative interpretation allowed slavery to exist. That was an actual threat of having the document lose all its meaning, and a horrible scar in our history.

Frankly, I find it sad that you think the literal reading of the Constitution is so deplorable. I think it is a genius document, that if observed by a literal reading is just as applicable today as it was the day it was written. Nonetheless, if you think it is so horribly written as to not apply to modern times, there is a process to change it. Where you risk it losing all it's meaning, is when you suggest that we should allow people to reinterpret it to mean things it does not say.

The Constitution is a living document in the sense that it includes a process to change it, thereby establishing a way to grow. It was realized at its conception that it was not perfect, and a process to amend it was included to correct discrepancies, but as it is written so it should be read.

 

[Yieu]

I disagree.

Yes, we need to apply the definitions of the words in their context, or "time" as you put it, but that is the end of it.

An example is blacks are persons, and the Constitution grants explicit rights to persons. Of course, many Founders probably had no intention of granting rights to blacks, but because they meant something different the law was not observed as it was written and creative interpretation allowed slavery to exist. That was an actual threat of having the document lose all its meaning, and a horrible scar in our history.

Frankly, I find it sad that you think the literal reading of the Constitution is so deplorable. I think it is a genius document, that if observed by a literal reading is just as applicable today as it was the day it was written. Nonetheless, if you think it is so horribly written as to not apply to modern times, there is a process to change it. Where you risk it losing all it's meaning, is when you suggest that we should allow people to reinterpret it to mean things it does not say.

The Constitution is a living document in the sense that it includes a process to change it, thereby establishing a way to grow. It was realized at its conception that it was not perfect, and a process to amend it was included to correct discrepancies, but as it is written so it should be read.

When you read the words I wrote in the quote of mine you quoted in this post, you interpreted them differently than I meant them!

See, this is what I mean. If we go around applying our own meanings and definitions to the words in the Constitution, then we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean. That is not a literal reading, that is an interpretive reading. What I suggested, using the meaning that the founders put into the document, is what I would consider to be a literal reading.

Also, the term "living document" is usually meant to be the kind of reading I am arguing against, and does not refer to the amendment process. That type of reading being where you use whatever definition of the words in it allows the government to do what it wants, rather than the government following the intent and meaning behind the words that were written, using the definitions and concepts that were meant in the words.