What does privacy have to do with Abortion?

[master_catholic]

I’ve heard the term thrown around right and left, and although I may have an idea what it could refer to (i.e. the claim to have the right to private murder) I’m really not sure. If someone knows what they are talking about I’d like to know.
Thanks

 

[rpp]

From the perspective of morality, a “private” abortion can be likened to a “private” rape. (Rape is not as serious, but still a horrific crime.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

The “right” to a special kind of privacy (it legalizes abortion, but doesn’t prevent tax audits) was found "emanating from the penumbra) of the 14th Amendment.

Here is the first section of the 14th Amendment:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Roe v. Wade is what you get when you appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who are unable to read or understand English.

 

[master_catholic]

Like how do they use privacy - logically (faulty of course) - to justify Abortion? What arguments do they draw from the “right to privacy” to justify murdering a child?

 

[Mac6yver]

I believe it mainly refers to medical privacy.

 

[master_catholic]

I believe it mainly refers to medical privacy.

oh like “this is a private medical decision, so it’s none of your business” excuse?

 

[rpp]

I believe it mainly refers to medical privacy.

Actual it refers to the medical privacy of the mother. It does not address the medical privacy of the murder victim, which is being utterly ignored.

 

[BeeSweet]

It’s a bunch of nonsense. A woman only has this supposed right to privacy during the first trimester of the pregnancy. After that, the state has the right to intervene just as they did during the first trimester prior to Roe v Wade. Thankfully the partial birth abortion act was upheld recently, although I’m baffled as to how both can stand.

What needs to be fought for in order to overturn Roe v Wade completely is an amendment defining life as beginning at conception. Then the same rights as determined by the fourteenth amendment will apply to an unborn child during the first trimester.

That’s a can of worms that I don’t see the pharmaceutical companies allowing to be opened though, considering the post fertilization effects of contraceptive pills.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s a bunch of nonsense. A woman only has this supposed right to privacy during the first trimester of the pregnancy. After that, the state has the right to intervene just as they did during the first trimester prior to Roe v Wade. Thankfully the partial birth abortion act was upheld recently, although I’m baffled as to how both can stand.

What needs to be fought for in order to overturn Roe v Wade completely is an amendment defining life as beginning at conception. Then the same rights as determined by the fourteenth amendment will apply to an unborn child during the first trimester.

That’s a can of worms that I don’t see the pharmaceutical companies allowing to be opened though, considering the post fertilization effects of contraceptive pills.

Roe v. Wade is the original “slippery slope.” Once embarked on it, we slide all the way to the bottom, and there is no way to stop or slow down.

 

[master_catholic]

Thank you all for your responses, it helps a lot

What I guess I need help understanding is how pro-choice people USE privacy to justify abortion. How do they use privacy to argue for abortion?

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you all for your responses, it helps a lot

What I guess I need help understanding is how pro-choice people USE privacy to justify abortion. How do they use privacy to argue for abortion?

They will use the example of a wife, whose husband no longer sleeps with her, who gets pregnant while having an affair.

In order to protect her privacy (ie: so that her husband doesn’t catch her cheating on him, and divorce her leaving her penniless) she has to have an abortion.

Or, a girl is going with two boys at the same time, and doesn’t know which of them is the father of her child. (Let us further suppose that they are of different races, and if she guesses incorrectly, the boy will immediately be able to tell that the child is not actually his.) In order to avoid a lot of awkward questions, she decides to have an abortion, in order to prevent the two boyfriends from finding out about each other.

Of course the real solution to these dilemmas is not to get into the situation in the first place, and always to keep it as a general principle never actually to do anything that you wouldn’t want to be caught doing.

 

[a_priori]

It’s easy. Start with your desired conclusion, making abortion legal, then work backwards with talk of penumbras and make it all fit. How difficult is that?

 

[mary_bobo]

I believe it mainly refers to medical privacy.

You may be right, but I think that at the time RvW was brought before the court we did not hear much about medical privacy. It was just there.

 

[mary_bobo]

The “right” to a special kind of privacy (it legalizes abortion, but doesn’t prevent tax audits) was found "emanating from the penumbra) of the 14th Amendment.

Here is the first section of the 14th Amendment:

Roe v. Wade is what you get when you appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who are unable to read or understand English.

Might I add judges who have an agenda and will work with a cowardly congress to push through things that the legislative branch knows they cannot get thru as law so they depend on the liberal justices to rule on such matters. And Roe v Wade is not the only abomination that has become the law of the land in such a manner.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Might I add judges who have an agenda and will work with a cowardly congress to push through things that the legislative branch knows they cannot get thru as law so they depend on the liberal justices to rule on such matters. And Roe v Wade is not the only abomination that has become the law of the land in such a manner.

There is no greater admirer of the Constitution of the United States than I. But the lack of a realistic mechanism for holding the judiciary accountable is a great flaw.

 

[master_catholic]

There is no greater admirer of the Constitution of the United States than I. But the lack of a realistic mechanism for holding the judiciary accountable is a great flaw.

Some historical figures during the meeting over the constitution complained just about that, the lack of such a mechanism.

Another thing to note is that many of the founding fathers mentioned that the govermental system that they set up is dependent upon our nation judging/acting with a christian morality. catholiceducation.org/articles/history/us/ah0021.html

And now that our nation is becoming secular, it is losing it’s capacity to judge fairly, as it grows less christian.

Read George Washington’s and Benjamin Franklins quote at the end, they say it all

 

[vern_humphrey]

Some historical figures during the meeting over the constitution complained just about that, the lack of such a mechanism.

Another thing to note is that many of the founding fathers mentioned that the govermental system that they set up is dependent upon our nation judging/acting with a christian morality. catholiceducation.org/articles/history/us/ah0021.html

And now that our nation is becoming secular, it is losing it’s capacity to judge fairly, as it grows less christian.

Read George Washington’s and Benjamin Franklins quote at the end, they say it all

In the end, the quality of government is a function of the quality of the men in government – who are a reflection of the people they govern.

I am, however, minded of Adams’ comments to Marshal on “lawyer logic.”

 

[Riley259]

I’ve heard the term thrown around right and left, and although I may have an idea what it could refer to (i.e. the claim to have the right to private murder) I’m really not sure. If someone knows what they are talking about I’d like to know.
Thanks

Yeah, it’s always been an absurd term to me. So, you have a right to privately kill your child…doesn’t make a lick of sense to me but apparently alot of the culture at large buys into it.

 

[paradoxy]

They will use the example of a wife, whose husband no longer sleeps with her, who gets pregnant while having an affair.

In order to protect her privacy (ie: so that her husband doesn’t catch her cheating on him, and divorce her leaving her penniless) she has to have an abortion.

Or, a girl is going with two boys at the same time, and doesn’t know which of them is the father of her child. (Let us further suppose that they are of different races, and if she guesses incorrectly, the boy will immediately be able to tell that the child is not actually his.) In order to avoid a lot of awkward questions, she decides to have an abortion, in order to prevent the two boyfriends from finding out about each other.

Of course the real solution to these dilemmas is not to get into the situation in the first place, and always to keep it as a general principle never actually to do anything that you wouldn’t want to be caught doing.

Wow! And people buy this?

Then ‘privacy’ should free from all charges a guy who kills a witness to his affair, b/c he wants it kept private…

 

[jmcrae]

Wow! And people buy this?

Then ‘privacy’ should free from all charges a guy who kills a witness to his affair, b/c he wants it kept private…

Well, it’s always presented in a scenario where the woman or girl is going to be beaten to death - and while I’m sure this happens, it’s quite rare - and there is always the option to “go visit Aunt Mary” for nine months, which is what people did before abortion became legal.