Does the constitution gurantee every individual the right to reproduce through biotechnology?

Answer 1

Maybe. Check out the Ninth Amendment. Although the supreme court has never actually found that the Ninth Amendment guarantees any rights, they probably should have.

The constitution doesn't guarantee any right until the Supreme Court says it does.

Answer 2

The constitution grants a lot of stuff, but technically, the right to reproduce isn't one of them, whether through biotechnology or otherwise... however, the 9th amendment does say there are certain unalienable rights not listed therein that the constitution protects (which is kind of a weird blanket statement that disagrees with number 10). Moreover, all citizens are supposed to be treated equally under the law; allowing natural reproduction while preventing those who can't reproduce because of their deformed reproduction systems might be called into account, but it's kind of a weak arguement.

Probably most important would be the forth amendment, which states the right to not have unwarrented search and seizure. In short, if you use biotechnology to artificially inseminate ones self, they're not really supposed to interfere with that.

Technically, I don't think there's anything preventing the outlawing of "test tube" babies of the sort you're probably thinking of...

Answer 3

The founding fathers didnt even have an inch that a concept called biotechnology would once exsist. So no where in the consitution will you find such a right.

There is also nothing in the consitution covering anything on the right to breed or not. But there are admendments that protect your right to live your life as long as you dont hurt the rights of others.. So you can inturpet many things in the consititution and bill of rights that will defend or argue against almost anything.

Answer 4

Not explicitly. Mainly because the concept of biotechnology wasn't too far advanced in the 1700s.

The courts have recognized as fundamental the right to have and raise children in natural manner. So, for the government to outlaw fertilization clinics or similar medical facilities that support natural child raising, the government would have to prove that it was attempting to address a critical problem (compelling government interest) and that the regulation was the least restrictive means to address that problem.

That fundamental right (and thus the strict scrutiny analysis) would probably not be extended to activities such as cloning or raising children entirely in artificial incubators, because such actions are not "rooted in the nation's history" and thus not fundamental.

Answer 5

I think it could be argued that biotech reproduction is a "fundamental liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment and the general right to privacy. Supreme Court cases have already protected the ability to use artificial means to PREVENT reproduction. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to apply the same reasoning to using artificial means TO reproduce.

Answer 6

The Constitution says nothing about reproducing in any form. God gives you those rights not the US government.

Answer 7

constitution is a fabulous piece of legislation that was broadly written to be interpreted throughout time as to what would be the germaine issues of the day. And it should be preserved as such.