The enumeration of rights in the Constitution is not manifold, hence the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The line of argumentation above leads to the Constitution becoming a bestower of rights, however its true roll is a protector of certain rights. Certain rights are so important that the framers decided to enumerate their protection, others thought enumeration would lead exactly to this line of argument... if it's not enumerated, it's not a right. I think Thomas stating that "liberty" may be the right in question is where the 9th amendment is leaning. (I'm actually surprised he asked the question the way he did. I think maybe he just wanted to know what the lawyer would say).
It's not the argument we should want to make anyway. The argument is simple: is the fetus a living human being and when do you count it? The lawyer is arguing 15 weeks is too early, and viability is the cut off. Most pro-lifers argue conception is a good cut off, while liberals argue birth is a good one. The court had to declare Blacks to be human beings worthy of human rights at some point. It's done the same for disabled persons. It completely has the authority to declare a human gamete a human life with human rights.
The enumeration of rights in the Constitution is not manifold, hence the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The line of argumentation above leads to the Constitution becoming a bestower of rights, however its true roll is a protector of certain rights. Certain rights are so important that the framers decided to enumerate their protection, others thought enumeration would lead exactly to this line of argument... if it's not enumerated, it's not a right. I think Thomas stating that "liberty" may be the right in question is where the 9th amendment is leaning. (I'm actually surprised he asked the question the way he did. I think maybe he just wanted to know what the lawyer would say).
It's not the argument we should want to make anyway. The argument is simple: is the fetus a living human being and when do you count it? The lawyer is arguing 15 weeks is too early, and viability is the cut off. Most pro-lifers argue conception is a good cut off, while liberals argue birth is a good one. The court had to declare Blacks to be human beings worthy of human rights at some point. It's done the same for disabled persons. It completely has the authority to declare a human gamete a human life with human rights.