The "right to privacy" has been asserted by those favoring abortion rights as inalienable and protected by the 4th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution.

If "privacy" is a constitutionally protected right (rather than a condition based on the circumstances a person finds himself in), then why doesn't "privacy" protect people like these involved in a sting operation?

Child Porn Arrests

For debate:

1. Is there a "right to privacy"?

2. Shouldn't this "right" (if it exists) protect other activities and not just abortion?

3. Should drug use, kiddie porn, and domestic abuse be protected too?

I am assuming this thread will very quickly be shut down as deliberatly infammatory, ill-defined and illogical, as it is all three. Especially considering there are at least two other active threads about abortion and the right to privacy open at the moment.



Suffice to say just this. As you WELL know, a right does not mean an unlimited right in all circumstances without exception.

I have freedom of assembly, but that does not give me the right to come into your house and sleep in your bed.

And in the case of your even more silly domestic abuse example, my rights may not infringe on the rights of other people equally protected.


You know all this, its dead obvious, you have even argued it yourself in a different context, so one has to ask:

Exacty why did you start this thread?

Ah, a new twist on the gay marriage slippery slope argument. Hey, congratulations to the DoJ getting the bad guys. Wish I could say the same for their single-minded determination to botch up the Moussaoui “terror” trial.

Is there a “right to privacy?”
Yep.

Shouldn't this "right" (if it exists) protect other activities and not just abortion?
Well, let’s see. Why doesn’t anyone try that same argument with alcohol? Laws covering transactions dealing with the sale and consumption of alcohol for adults, like the sale and consumption of adult porn for adults, are legal. But of course, conservatives don’t take this approach because it's not emotionally charged and comes across as idiotic off the bat.

Should drug use, kiddie porn, and domestic abuse be protected too?
I’m all for frying your brain and S&M between consenting adults. It’s their prerogative.


What prerogative does an 18 month-old have? Oh, none. I'm just tossing anything out there to discredit the concept of privacy rights.

1. Is there a "right to privacy"?

Absolutely, the SCOTUS has found that the U.S. constitution contains "penumbras" that implicitly grant a right to privacy against government intrusion, for example in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, in article 12, states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

2. Shouldn't this "right" (if it exists) protect other activities and not just abortion?

3. Should drug use, kiddie porn, and domestic abuse be protected too?

At the heart of these questions is an important misconception. Domestic abuse and Kiddie porn directly harm other people. Drug use impairs the thought processes of people, and therefore can (and often does) directly harm other people.

I would be pleased if there were less abortions in this country and if young mothers behaved more responsibly. But the law won't fix this. It is a privacy issue. Because until a child is born, the child is part of the mother.