Privacy of Crime

Published on June 26, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics

As long as abortion was illegal and secretive it was not an issue. When Roe took it out of the closet it was no longer a private issue because religion made it public and the decision made it politics. Abortion, not unlike homosexuality, was rarely thought of except for the subculture of midwives, hungry doctors and criminal entrepreneurs involved. In the light of day abortion prompted the self anointed religious and moral doomsayers out of the woodwork to pass judgment, rightly or wrongly, not only on abortion but planned parenthood, and heretofore innocuous preventive contraception. This was the severe price to pay for the court decision of Roe v. Wade which spiraled endlessly in debate and state by state attrition.

Frankly, it would be far better to overturn Roe and be done with it so that privacy can get back to being private. If a woman has a health problem or the fetus shows a clearly serious birth defect it is up to her to decide on late-birth abortion. For those in the first trimester, the family doctor should be free to advise and perform if necessary. It would be wise for states to overturn their own laws against abortion, while closing down public clinics. If contraceptives of all kinds have to come down from the shelves and placed behind the counter, so be it; but no pharmacist should be permitted the luxury of religious conscience when a customer requests a product. Parents of indiscreet teenagers are free to make a religious choice if they insist the child go through with it, but they must guarantee moral and financial support, or the church involved should come to the aid. A minor, however, has no obligation to apprise the family of her condition if she wishes to chance the back alleys, though I suspect in these modern times black market with much improved facilities will be available.

Bring back the privacy of crime.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments

stutefish

on Jun 26, 2006

For me it's never been a question of religious morality, but of simple human rights.

I wholeheartedly agree that a human's right to choose, for itself, whatever itdesires, is trumped by nothing else in the world... except for another human's right to live.

I honestly don't see what religion has to do with it. We already hold the right to life to be self-evident and inalienable, without needing religion to tell us why this might be so.

And I honestly don't see how we can declare human fetuses non-human, simply because it's sometimes inconvenient to think of them as human, without calling into question and undermining our society's entire commitment to and understanding of human rights.

bakerstreet

on Jun 26, 2006

Pfft.

How much privacy was Rush Limbaugh allowed? How much "privacy" am I allowed in my car, with policemen craning their necks to see if I have buckled up or if it is payday for the state? If a rich guy and I come to an agreement about that extra kidney I have, how much privacy as I allowed?

Here's a better questions, why are women who want abortions the ONLY people that are due that level of privacy? The Left says every damn thing else "takes a village"; i.e. we can't have a society unless the private lives of families are a matter for the society as a whole.

I'm sorry, but when I see feminists railing about the FDA's decision to allow women to buy silicone breast implants one day, and then complaining that the government has no right to interfere between a (female, pregnant) patient and their (her) doctor, it makes me want to puke. This isn't about privacy.

bakerstreet

on Jun 26, 2006

...and anyway why even consider this "black market" drama? You can bet that there will be a state with legal abortions within driving distance anywhere in the US. Overturning Roe v. Wade won't make abortion federal crime, it will just allow states to pass laws on their own.

Moderateman

on Jun 26, 2006

I am sure Taxifornia will turn abortions into a cottage industry.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 26, 2006

Interesting perspective, but still based on woefully outdated biological science. Biologists don't teach us to identify a species by what it looks like or how it acts, or even about the environment it best thrive anymore... it's all about the DNA now.

Homo Sapien DNA = Human Being... plain and simple. "Viability", "Privacy" and most other arugments for ending the life of a human fetus are all either junk science or personal opinion. Science itself gives the best and most complete arguments against abortion on demand.

On the other hand, established protocols of triage also give the best arguments for allowing abortion for purely medical reasons. If it comes to a choice between the mother and the fetus, the needs of the patient with the best chance for survival first (basic rule of triage). In almost all cases, that would be the mother.

Laws about abortion should be made based on the latest scientific facts, not backward ideas about life and species... especially when there is a perfectly good definition of what a Homo Sapien is and what Life is... and Human Fetuses do fit that definition.

terpfan1980

on Jun 26, 2006

If you want to complain about privacy I might jump on board for the ride, but if the complaint is about abortion, then sorry, you are pretty much on your own.

I'm not a fan of giving away my so-called right to privacy, but then again the right to privacy may or may not really exist in the constitution or the current bill of rights, so who really knows how things should be....

Dr Guy

on Jun 26, 2006

I am going to state that Baker is dead on. And so is Steven. coming from diametrically opposed positions. I read this and it hit me. A liberal who sees the trap! And yes it is a trap.

Baker argues the privacy issue, and that is very correct legally. Steven argues the self determination issue, and is very correct there too. But the trap!

Right now, the Pro abortion side is in it. They are arguing for death. The pro life side is sitting on the high and noble.

Follow Steven's plan, and the playing field is reversed!

The best part is, there are too few on his side that are as smart as he is. So the game will still be on the Pro life side.

Excellent post! You have done well.

stevendedalus

on Jun 27, 2006

True, but only because it has become such a torrid public issue and propelled to the level of morality.

If you want to complain about privacy I might jump on board for the ride, but if the complaint is about abortion, then sorry, you are pretty much on your own.

Privacy to a point until caught; as a rule, however, authority will turn the cheek on this kind of crime because it is personal and no longer a matter of public concern.

And yes it is a trap.

Doc, in light of your comment do you think Baker will release me from jail wherein I am fated to ponder the immorality of infanticide with respect to troubled women who indeed trapped themselves by making it a public issue? Returning abortion to a matter of subterranean crime ends the fuss and returns some sanity to politics.

bakerstreet

on Jun 27, 2006

Jail? LOL.

Again, I believe that this is an issue for people to decide. I don't agree with abortion morally, but I accept that I could very well be wrong about everything I believe. As could anyone who sits in judgement of the issue.\

That's why I think it isn't for the courts to decide. If we go on and just make it a crime in sweeping fashion, then we are robbing those areas in America of the representation they are owed. If we present it as a blanket right, we do the same in the other areas.

That's why I think we need to stop thinking about it morally altogether, and put democracy to work. Laws ARE a public issue, and people want laws concerning this, either outlawing or protecting the practice. Shouldn't they have the right to make those laws?

Just about everything in your article above flies in the face of "choice." Phamacists may not choose what they can and can't sell. A family has NO right to be made aware of serious health issues concerning their child... only in the case of pregnancy.

Do you see how you are choosing a very narrow set of circumstances where privacy and "choice" are untouchable, but in the same act you are damning privacy and choice for everyone else? This isn't about discrimination AGAINST women who happen to be pregnant, this is about granting them special rights that no one else has; the right to tell the government to go screw itself.

The day that it is legal for me to choose what I want to do why MY own body, maybe we can talk about a universal ideal of such. Right now, reproductive issues seem to be the only thing some people think we aren't allowed to regulate, and to me that is a farce.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 27, 2006

Stevendallus:

True, but only because it has become such a torrid public issue and propelled to the level of morality.

The only reason it has become such a torrid issue is people who want abortion on demand to remain legal refuse to accept that the fetus is a human being. In other words, reality gets in the way of their convenience. To deny another's humanity, simply for convenience sake, is a terrible way to be.

Dr Guy

on Jun 27, 2006

Doc, in light of your comment do you think Baker will release me from jail wherein I am fated to ponder the immorality of infanticide with respect to troubled women who indeed trapped themselves by making it a public issue? Returning abortion to a matter of subterranean crime ends the fuss and returns some sanity to politics.

I am not arguing on the morality or lack of it on the issue itself as that has been tramped to death. Reversing Roe V Wade would not make it universally illegal, but it would return the debate to the people where the primacy of ideas would have to be debated. Right now the debate is not on whether we would see more illegal abortions (although the one side would like it to be - it is not), but on circumventing the will of the people. If you remove that argument, then you would have to win over a majority of people to your way, which in many cases, people do agree that abortion should be legal - just not in all cases as it is today.

stevendedalus

on Jun 27, 2006

The only reason it has become such a torrid issue is people who want abortion on demand to remain legal refuse to accept that the fetus is a human being.

Okay, but it's because it was put on the table for debate by Roe.

Reversing Roe V Wade would not make it universally illegal, but it would return the debate to the people where the primacy of ideas would have to be debated.

Putting aside the moral issue, making it illegal again would help deter the practice somewhat, but more important, it would not tear the nation apart.Let's defer the issue to a more enlightened millennium--brave new world?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!