The 9th amendment (1 Viewer)

[samiam5211]

Could an argument be made that the 9th amendment protects an individual's right to body autonomy?


Could abortion rights, the right to refuse a vaccine, and the right to gender therapy all be protected?

I think if we could get a case where the SCOTUS could make a ruling that vax mandates, abortion bans, and banning gender reassignment surgery are all unconstitutional, we would all be able to just get over it.

It could solve some of the most divisive issues, without making any of us happy, and i think it is probably the best resolution we could hope for.

I asked ChatGPT to help with ideas.

Certainly! Here's an argument asserting that the Ninth Amendment protects bodily autonomy:

---

The Ninth Amendment as a Protector of Bodily Autonomy

Introduction:The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." While this amendment does not list specific rights, it acknowledges the existence of other fundamental rights beyond those explicitly mentioned. One of the most inherent and fundamental rights is the right to bodily autonomy.

Historical Context:The framers of the Constitution crafted the Ninth Amendment to ensure that the listing of specific rights in the Constitution would not be used to limit or deny other rights that people inherently possess. While the framers did not list every single right, they acknowledged the dynamic nature of human rights, understanding that society's perspectives would evolve over time.

The Nature of Bodily Autonomy:Bodily autonomy encompasses the right of individuals to make decisions about their own bodies without interference or coercion from the state or other individuals. This right is deeply rooted in the concepts of personal liberty, dignity, and privacy.

Applications of Bodily Autonomy:

1. Abortion Rights: A woman's decision to undergo an abortion is a deeply personal choice that concerns her body. Protecting her right to make this decision is an extension of safeguarding her bodily autonomy, ensuring that she has control over her reproductive health without governmental interference.
2. Mandatory Vaccines: While public health is a significant concern, forcing mandatory vaccinations would infringe upon an individual's right to decide what substances enter their body. Any government mandate would need to be carefully weighed against the principle of bodily autonomy.
3. Cosmetic and Gender Reassignment Surgery: Decisions related to cosmetic modifications, including gender reassignment surgery, are deeply personal and concern an individual's body image, identity, and sense of self. Protecting the right to undergo such procedures, regardless of societal or cultural views, upholds the principle of bodily autonomy.

Comparative Analysis:Other constitutional rights indirectly support the idea of bodily autonomy. For example, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, inherently preserving an individual's physical body from unwarranted intrusions. The idea that the government cannot violate the physical integrity of its citizens supports the broader concept of bodily autonomy.

Conclusion:The Ninth Amendment serves as a bulwark against narrow interpretations of individual rights. While it does not explicitly mention bodily autonomy, the spirit of the amendment — recognizing and preserving unenumerated rights — provides a robust foundation for arguing that the right to control one's body is a fundamental and inherent right protected from governmental interference.

 

[SystemShock]

I think if we could get a case where the SCOTUS could make a ruling that vax mandates, abortion bans, and banning gender reassignment surgery are all unconstitutional,

That's not going to happen.

we would all be able to just get over it.

That's not going to happen either.

I asked ChatGPT to help with ideas.

Good that you got a generic argument from the computer.

Are there any restrictions here? Is the goal that every person in the U.S. is free to do whatever they want to their bodies? Since you added gender reassignment surgery, and the only time I see that debated is in regards to minors (at least I've never seen anyone argue that adults should be banned from those practices), would that allow minors to decide what substances enter their bodies, such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs, implants, tattoos? Remove ages of consent altogether?

How about crazies infecting themselves with viruses and willingly spreading them among the population by no other means but just being in the same space as others?

 

[samiam5211]

That's not going to happen.


That's not going to happen either.



Good that you got a generic argument from the computer.

Are there any restrictions here? Is the goal that every person in the U.S. is free to do whatever they want to their bodies? Since you added gender reassignment surgery, and the only time I see that debated is in regards to minors (at least I've never seen anyone argue that adults should be banned from those practices), would that allow minors to decide what substances enter their bodies, such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs, implants, tattoos? Remove ages of consent altogether?

How about crazies infecting themselves with viruses and willingly spreading them among the population by no other means but just being in the same space as others?

Yea, how about those things.

That is the point of a discussion.

Of course none of this is ever going to happen, it's just a thought experiment.

What restrictions should we have?

Do you think that there is absolutely no right to body autonomy?

We have age limitations on other rights, i don't see why there wouldn't be the authority to set age limitations.

I guess we would need some sort of understanding that you couldn't intentionally infect yourself with Ebola then go to a football game and vomit on the people sitting below you.

 

[SystemShock]

Yea, how about those things.

That is the point of a discussion.

Of course none of this is ever going to happen, it's just a thought experiment.

So I gave you my thoughts on your thought experiment.

What restrictions should we have?

That's what I asked.

Do you think that there is absolutely no right to body autonomy?

Why do you ask me that?

We have age limitations on other rights, i don't see why there wouldn't be the authority to set age limitations.

We have age limitations on other rights, sure, but those other rights don't include body autonomy, the right to do whatever the hell we want to our bodies.

I guess we would need some sort of understanding that you couldn't intentionally infect yourself with Ebola then go to a football game and vomit on the people sitting below you.

How are you going to enforce that understanding, if it is unconstitutional to do so?

 

[samiam5211]

So I gave you my thoughts on your thought experiment.


That's what I asked.


Why do you ask me that?


We have age limitations on other rights, sure, but those other rights don't include body autonomy, the right to do whatever the hell we want to our bodies.



How are you going to enforce that understanding, if it is unconstitutional to do so?

The point was a discussion, not to get you to agree with me.

You have spent all this time to say "This is stupid". You could have just said that.

This isn't intended to be an AMA.

 

[SystemShock]

The point was a discussion, not to get you to agree with me.

You have spent all this time to say "This is stupid". You could have just said that.

This isn't intended to be an AMA.

So how exactly would you like me to discuss this? Because the discussions I am used to, people offer their opinions and ask questions so others could clarify/expand on the subject, which is what I did.

 

[samiam5211]

So how exactly would you like me to discuss this? Because the discussions I am used to, people offer their opinions and ask questions so others could clarify/expand on the subject, which is what I did.

You are used to arguing.

 

[Lapaz]

So I gave you my thoughts on your thought experiment.


That's what I asked.


Why do you ask me that?


We have age limitations on other rights, sure, but those other rights don't include body autonomy, the right to do whatever the hell we want to our bodies.



How are you going to enforce that understanding, if it is unconstitutional to do so?

There are laws against intentionally doing something to others, such as infecting them with a deadly virus. I believe that is known as manslaughter. That would violate the constitutional right to life. The right to bodily autonomy stops when it infringes on other people's rights.

I think the bodily autonomy rationale is a compelling argument that serves both Democratic and Republican interests. It would effectively allow people to do whatever they want to their bodies, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people. Republicans were the primary group that opposed vaccinations, while Democrats are largely in favor of abortion rights and surgeries; however none of these would be unfettered. Abortions still wouldn't be allowed once a baby is viable if it can be delivered without killing or causing serious health issues for the mother, since it wouldn't infringe on the mother's body autonomy once the fetus is removed from her body. Mandatory vaccines would be unconstitutional, however it wouldn't be unconstitutional to prohibit people that haven't been vaccinated from going places that endanger people. Cosmetic and gender surgeries would be constitutional, but it isn't unconstitutional to establish an age of majority for children to make some decisions. By the way, the age of majority doesn't have to 18 for all things. I know children are given rights to choose between divorced parents well before they are 18. I would certainly allow a younger girl as young as 16 to decide about whether to have an abortion. Parents don't have an unfettered right to the body autonomy of their kids, so I don't think it would unconstitutional to forbid them from making some decisions for their child, but I think society can set different ages for different issues that impact a child's bodily autonomy. This is where the debate would continue. I think all would agree that parents would still have the right to make the vast majority of decisions about their children's health, but some restrictions can still be constitutional, and where the line is drawn will be debated. However, this 9th amendment autonomy argument is compelling for a free society. I like the idea. It would alleviate the illegal drug issue, since it should lead to decriminalization and treatment.

P.S. That response from ChatGPT is crazy! It is very well written, and I'm beside myself in surprise!

 

[SystemShock]

There are laws against intentionally doing something to others, such as infecting them with a deadly virus. I believe that is known as manslaughter. That would violate the constitutional right to life. The right to bodily autonomy stops when it infringes on other people's rights.

The infected would have to die to be manslaughter, but anyway, how would you prove who did it if you cannot test people for diseases?

I think the bodily autonomy rationale is a compelling argument that serves both Democratic and Republican interests. It would effectively allow people to do whatever they want to their bodies, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people. Republicans were the primary group that opposed vaccinations, while Democrats are largely in favor of abortion rights and surgeries; however none of these would be unfettered. Abortions still wouldn't be allowed once a baby is viable if it can be delivered without killing or causing serious health issues for the mother, since it wouldn't infringe on the mother's body autonomy once the fetus is removed from her body. Mandatory vaccines would be unconstitutional, however it wouldn't be unconstitutional to prohibit people that haven't been vaccinated from going places that endanger people. Cosmetic and gender surgeries would be constitutional, but it isn't unconstitutional to establish an age of majority for children to make some decisions. By the way, the age of majority doesn't have to 18 for all things. I know children are given rights to choose between divorced parents well before they are 18. I would certainly allow a younger girl as young as 16 to decide about whether to have an abortion. Parents don't have an unfettered right to the body autonomy of their kids, so I don't think it would unconstitutional to forbid them from making some decisions for their child, but I think society can set different ages for different issues that impact a child's bodily autonomy. This is where the debate would continue. I think all would agree that parents would still have the right to make the vast majority of decisions about their children's health, but some restrictions can still be constitutional, and where the line is drawn will be debated. However, this 9th amendment autonomy argument is compelling for a free society. I like the idea. It would alleviate the illegal drug issue, since it should lead to decriminalization and treatment.

P.S. That response from ChatGPT is crazy! It is very well written, and I'm beside myself in surprise!

I don't think is a good argument.

This pseudo-Solominic proposition is very lopsided: "we give you no vaccines, we get abortion and gender affirming surgeries for minors". It is a proposition that doesn't see the ramifications of it, beyond a compromise that doesn't appease anyone, yet greatly favors one side, to the detriment of everybody.

As for prohibiting the non-vaccinated from going places, you have to think beyond the COVID pandemic and think how life would look in the future, when there are no emergencies or pandemics raging (although, it probably they wouldn't take long to occur if there are no enforceable vaccine mandates): is the government going to have to build separate schools/hospitals/emergency rooms/etc for the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated? How about supermarkets? Water fountains? Exercising your right of not being vaccinated allows for the infringement of most your other rights, including your right to assembly?

And who enforces it?

And then you have to think of the ramifications outside vaccines, surgeries, or abortions: does body autonomy extend to excreted body fluids? What happens to things like drug tests? It's my urine, my sweat, etc., and you can't have/use them without my consent.

What about X-Rays that send radiation through your body? Airport police wouldn't be able to xray smugglers who swallow drugs.

Cavity searches?

And you can say "oh, in this case we do this, in that case we do that", but then you'd mostly be violating the principle of body autonomy. You can't specify just vaccines, abortions, and cosmetic surgeries as "body autonomy", and exclude all of the other situations in which body autonomy could apply.

 

[samiam5211]

There are laws against intentionally doing something to others, such as infecting them with a deadly virus. I believe that is known as manslaughter. That would violate the constitutional right to life. The right to bodily autonomy stops when it infringes on other people's rights.

I think the bodily autonomy rationale is a compelling argument that serves both Democratic and Republican interests. It would effectively allow people to do whatever they want to their bodies, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people. Republicans were the primary group that opposed vaccinations, while Democrats are largely in favor of abortion rights and surgeries; however none of these would be unfettered. Abortions still wouldn't be allowed once a baby is viable if it can be delivered without killing or causing serious health issues for the mother, since it wouldn't infringe on the mother's body autonomy once the fetus is removed from her body. Mandatory vaccines would be unconstitutional, however it wouldn't be unconstitutional to prohibit people that haven't been vaccinated from going places that endanger people. Cosmetic and gender surgeries would be constitutional, but it isn't unconstitutional to establish an age of majority for children to make some decisions. By the way, the age of majority doesn't have to 18 for all things. I know children are given rights to choose between divorced parents well before they are 18. I would certainly allow a younger girl as young as 16 to decide about whether to have an abortion. Parents don't have an unfettered right to the body autonomy of their kids, so I don't think it would unconstitutional to forbid them from making some decisions for their child, but I think society can set different ages for different issues that impact a child's bodily autonomy. This is where the debate would continue. I think all would agree that parents would still have the right to make the vast majority of decisions about their children's health, but some restrictions can still be constitutional, and where the line is drawn will be debated. However, this 9th amendment autonomy argument is compelling for a free society. I like the idea. It would alleviate the illegal drug issue, since it should lead to decriminalization and treatment.

P.S. That response from ChatGPT is crazy! It is very well written, and I'm beside myself in surprise!

My thinking is that would it prevent the government from having any requirements for vaccines, except for case like the military where people agree to surrender a certain amount of rights. Maybe there could be exceptions for government employees whose work justifies it, similar to how some jobs require a security clearance that places certain restrictions on a person's freedom.

Private businesses could require whatever they want.

It wouldn't be great of course. Schools would be less safe for children, although a virus probably still wouldn't be the greatest threat to them at schools. The assumption would be that most people would either be vaccinated and protected, or unvaccinated because their parents made that choice and accepted the risk on their behalf. Kids who couldn't get vaccinated for medical reasons, but would otherwise, would be the losers in that case.

Nothing is perfect.

I am not sure it would really resolve the abortion issue after reading your and shock's post. At what point would a fetus have body autonomy? So that pretty much puts us at the same problem we have now with regard to abortion. My preference would just be to not have any legal restrictions and leave it up to the woman and the doctor, under the assumption that pretty much all women aren't going to just decide they don't want a baby after carrying it for more than half the term.

I just think that the problems created by this imperfect solution would be less than the problem created by the conflict over several very divisive issues preventing us from being able focus on issues that really impact everyone's lives.

Yes, ChatGPT is great at doing the work if you give it the ideas. I don't get people's resistance to it. it's just a calculator for words.

 

[samiam5211]

The infected would have to die to be manslaughter, but anyway, how would you prove who did it if you cannot test people for diseases?



I don't think is a good argument.

This pseudo-Solominic proposition is very lopsided: "we give you no vaccines, we get abortion and gender affirming surgeries for minors". It is a proposition that doesn't see the ramifications of it, beyond a compromise that doesn't appease anyone, yet greatly favors one side, to the detriment of everybody.

As for prohibiting the non-vaccinated from going places, you have to think beyond the COVID pandemic and think how life would look in the future, when there are no emergencies or pandemics raging (although, it probably they wouldn't take long to occur if there are no enforceable vaccine mandates): is the government going to have to build separate schools/hospitals/emergency rooms/etc for the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated? How about supermarkets? Water fountains? Exercising your right of not being vaccinated allows for the infringement of most your other rights, including your right to assembly?

And who enforces it?

And then you have to think of the ramifications outside vaccines, surgeries, or abortions: does body autonomy extend to excreted body fluids? What happens to things like drug tests? It's my urine, my sweat, etc., and you can't have/use them without my consent.

What about X-Rays that send radiation through your body? Airport police wouldn't be able to xray smugglers who swallow drugs.

Cavity searches?

And you can say "oh, in this case we do this, in that case we do that", but then you'd mostly be violating the principle of body autonomy. You can't specify just vaccines, abortions, and cosmetic surgeries as "body autonomy", and exclude all of the other situations in which body autonomy could apply.

I didn't mean to make it one sided. I am sure there are many other issues that involve bodily autonomy. Drug use would be one, but I guess that would be seen as also favoring one side.

We would certainly have more cases of measels, mups, and all kids of other things. It would increase the likelyhood of a vaccine resistant strains of those viruses too. I think MRNA technology is going to make it possible to create vaccines that keep up with virus though, so maybe the vaccinated group won't be put at much additional risk.

As far as the airport goes. Airlines have a right to decide who gets on their planes independent of the government. If an airline wants to serve people that don't have to be x-rayed, then people will have a choice not to fly with them.

I don't think you should be subjected to a cavity search without a warrant. People can already have their rights violated with a warrant.

 

[Lapaz]

The infected would have to die to be manslaughter, but anyway, how would you prove who did it if you cannot test people for diseases?



I don't think is a good argument.

This pseudo-Solominic proposition is very lopsided: "we give you no vaccines, we get abortion and gender affirming surgeries for minors". It is a proposition that doesn't see the ramifications of it, beyond a compromise that doesn't appease anyone, yet greatly favors one side, to the detriment of everybody.

As for prohibiting the non-vaccinated from going places, you have to think beyond the COVID pandemic and think how life would look in the future, when there are no emergencies or pandemics raging (although, it probably they wouldn't take long to occur if there are no enforceable vaccine mandates): is the government going to have to build separate schools/hospitals/emergency rooms/etc for the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated? How about supermarkets? Water fountains? Exercising your right of not being vaccinated allows for the infringement of most your other rights, including your right to assembly?

And who enforces it?

And then you have to think of the ramifications outside vaccines, surgeries, or abortions: does body autonomy extend to excreted body fluids? What happens to things like drug tests? It's my urine, my sweat, etc., and you can't have/use them without my consent.

What about X-Rays that send radiation through your body? Airport police wouldn't be able to xray smugglers who swallow drugs.

Cavity searches?

And you can say "oh, in this case we do this, in that case we do that", but then you'd mostly be violating the principle of body autonomy. You can't specify just vaccines, abortions, and cosmetic surgeries as "body autonomy", and exclude all of the other situations in which body autonomy could apply.

You raise lots of good points. I’ll need to spend some time thinking about it and I kay have more thoughts about it. I think Samian’s autonomy proposal may still be a good angle, but it is certainly not a panacea.

 

[Taurus]

The infected would have to die to be manslaughter, but anyway, how would you prove who did it if you cannot test people for diseases?



I don't think is a good argument.

This pseudo-Solominic proposition is very lopsided: "we give you no vaccines, we get abortion and gender affirming surgeries for minors". It is a proposition that doesn't see the ramifications of it, beyond a compromise that doesn't appease anyone, yet greatly favors one side, to the detriment of everybody.

As for prohibiting the non-vaccinated from going places, you have to think beyond the COVID pandemic and think how life would look in the future, when there are no emergencies or pandemics raging (although, it probably they wouldn't take long to occur if there are no enforceable vaccine mandates): is the government going to have to build separate schools/hospitals/emergency rooms/etc for the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated? How about supermarkets? Water fountains? Exercising your right of not being vaccinated allows for the infringement of most your other rights, including your right to assembly?

And who enforces it?

And then you have to think of the ramifications outside vaccines, surgeries, or abortions: does body autonomy extend to excreted body fluids? What happens to things like drug tests? It's my urine, my sweat, etc., and you can't have/use them without my consent.

What about X-Rays that send radiation through your body? Airport police wouldn't be able to xray smugglers who swallow drugs.

Cavity searches?

And you can say "oh, in this case we do this, in that case we do that", but then you'd mostly be violating the principle of body autonomy. You can't specify just vaccines, abortions, and cosmetic surgeries as "body autonomy", and exclude all of the other situations in which body autonomy could apply.

Strictly on the bodily fluids angle.
It's already forbidden to go in and *take* urine/spit/sweat, but if you drink that water at the police station, that spit (with your DNA in it) belongs to the cops.

There was a case in Washington some years back where a tuberculosis carrier refused treatment and was quarantined.