Does a Right to Privacy Exist in the US Constitution?

[Third Party]

On Law and Order you hear the lawyers talk about expectation of privacy.

Yeah, 'cause Law & Order is always exactly factually correct.

In this case, are they or aren't they?

 

[Cecilie1200]

On Law and Order you hear the lawyers talk about expectation of privacy.

Yeah, 'cause Law & Order is always exactly factually correct.

In this case, are they or aren't they?

Depends what they said it in regards to.

The thing about privacy - and the reason that the assertion of a "universal right to privacy" is so asinine - is that it's a very conditional thing, and usually dependent on other factors, or even on other rights.

If, for example, a person is in police custody and is talking to his lawyer, then he has an expectation of privacy because of his right of attorney-client privilege. They're put in a separate room with no one else in it, and he therefore has a reasonable expectation that there will not be listening devices or people lurking behind mirrored windows to eavesdrop or whatever.

On the other hand, if the person decides to tell his lawyer in the middle of the crowded police station lobby that he's guilty, he has no expectation of privacy due to attorney-client privilege or anything else, because he's in a public place.

 

[dblack]

Nevermind right to privacy. Right to control over your own fucking body is more like it. Things like this were so basic and assumed that the founders never called them out.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Swing Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Hugo Black disagreed in Griswold v Connecticut. The decision was 7 - 2 in favor. The big deal was Justice Douglas, ultra liberal accused-activist Judge. Doe any of it matter?

Question
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

My Question(s): Do you stand on principle, or do you agree or disagree because of personalities involved or a judicial philosophy?

and

Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

Not anymore

 

[Levant]

Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

The Fourth Amendment is almost entirely about privacy. Actually, so is the Third Amendment, but it's not so obvious unless you really understand the background of it.

I agree about the right to privacy... It is clearly the intent in being secure in ones persons, houses, papers, and effects... That doesn't mean that killing the unborn child in you is part of that but it most certainly implies a right to privacy.

 

[Levant]

Nevermind right to privacy. Right to control over your own fucking body is more like it. Things like this were so basic and assumed that the founders never called them out.

I agree whole-heartedly. Every woman has the right to say no to sex and to not get pregnant. I'm pro-choice; just say no to sex. But when they have made the choice, like all of us, then we must live with the consequences of our choices... Unless and until the unborn child can vote on what happens to THEIR body.

 

[dblack]

Nevermind right to privacy. Right to control over your own fucking body is more like it. Things like this were so basic and assumed that the founders never called them out.

I agree whole-heartedly. Every woman has the right to say no to sex and to not get pregnant. I'm pro-choice; just say no to sex. But when they have made the choice, like all of us, then we must live with the consequences of our choices... Unless and until the unborn child can vote on what happens to THEIR body.

You're fixated on your conviction that a fetus is, or should be treated as, a person with legal rights. If you start there, there's no other alternative than authoritarian, state control of the womb. Which obliterates individual rights. No thanks.

 

[Levant]

Nevermind right to privacy. Right to control over your own fucking body is more like it. Things like this were so basic and assumed that the founders never called them out.

I agree whole-heartedly. Every woman has the right to say no to sex and to not get pregnant. I'm pro-choice; just say no to sex. But when they have made the choice, like all of us, then we must live with the consequences of our choices... Unless and until the unborn child can vote on what happens to THEIR body.

You're fixated on your conviction that a fetus is, or should be treated as, a person with legal rights. If you start there, there's no other alternative than authoritarian, state control of the womb. Which obliterates individual rights. No thanks.

Completely untrue. A woman is in control of her sex organs and the choice to have sex and procreate is completely hers. Less than 0.5 per cent of mothers who kill their unborn children even make the claim that those children are the result of rape so the choice was always the woman's.

Defense of abortion has never been about defending a woman's right to control her body; it's always about defending sex without consequence. Sex has consequences.

 

[dblack]

You're fixated on your conviction that a fetus is, or should be treated as, a person with legal rights. If you start there, there's no other alternative than authoritarian, state control of the womb. Which obliterates individual rights. No thanks.

Completely untrue.

How so? I'm claiming your argue is based on your conviction that a fetus has rights. How is that untrue? Are you denying it? Why?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Will Knot Want Knock Not "

* Let Us Hope Know Naught *

" When Buffoonery Makes More Sense Than Confronting Reality "
* Ad Hominem Excuses From Trolls *

too funny

How is funny relevant over an intelligent response ?
US 14th Amendment Establishes Negative Liberty of Individuals to Acquire Abortion is an obvious fact .
The wright of privacy within us 4th amendment is an obvious fact that is played out every day .

sorry
you lose

The us 4th amendment is affected by susceptibility to draconian police states where a witness could produce evidence sufficient for probable cause to issue a warrant describing a place to be searched ( abortion services location ) , and the persons ( mother , practitioner , contributors , corporation ) or things to be seized ( those things necessary to prove that feticide had occurred ) .

Suppose a conjecture where an apparently pregnant woman is entering a facility known to provide abortions and state officials produce evidence sufficient for a court to order a warrant to seize the facility for evidence ( body tissues , improper medical disposal ) to incriminate either the mother , or the practitioner , or the corporation , or the contributors , and to charge all or any with feticide .

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[2]


* Medical Records Privacy *

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act - Wikipedia

 

[justinacolmena]

Does a Right to Privacy Exist somewhere with in the US Constitution, and if so can you point to it?

The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Amendments

• 2. We the people have guns.
• 3. Neither soldiers nor the military in general are to have the free run of our homes.
• 4. The police are not to have the free run of our homes, or free access to our bodies, papers, and personal property.

 

[Dick Foster]

On Law and Order you hear the lawyers talk about expectation of privacy.

Yeah, 'cause Law & Order is always exactly factually correct.

In this case, are they or aren't they?

Depends what they said it in regards to.

The thing about privacy - and the reason that the assertion of a "universal right to privacy" is so asinine - is that it's a very conditional thing, and usually dependent on other factors, or even on other rights.

If, for example, a person is in police custody and is talking to his lawyer, then he has an expectation of privacy because of his right of attorney-client privilege. They're put in a separate room with no one else in it, and he therefore has a reasonable expectation that there will not be listening devices or people lurking behind mirrored windows to eavesdrop or whatever.

On the other hand, if the person decides to tell his lawyer in the middle of the crowded police station lobby that he's guilty, he has no expectation of privacy due to attorney-client privilege or anything else, because he's in a public place.

He secret is not confusing what's in the constitution with the musings of various judicial bodies. When it comes to the constitution it's fairly clearly written and easy to understand dispute what some who are clearly trying to grab power for themselves may say. It needs little in the way of so called interpretation. You most definately have the right to be secure in your person and your papers which obviously would extend to any advances in technology today such as telephones and emails. This is a simple no brainer for anyone with a brain. Apparently a rare case among many in the judiciary.

 

[Levant]

You're fixated on your conviction that a fetus is, or should be treated as, a person with legal rights. If you start there, there's no other alternative than authoritarian, state control of the womb. Which obliterates individual rights. No thanks.

Completely untrue.

How so? I'm claiming your argue is based on your conviction that a fetus has rights. How is that untrue? Are you denying it? Why?

The woman had control of her womb. If I have a house, no insurance, on my own rural property and there is no law restricting me from burning.. Can I burn it down? Sure I can. It happens all the time.

But what if I rent the house to you and you're in it asleep? It's my property and I have the right to control my property.. Can I burn it down?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Discombobulation "

* Occam *

The woman had control of her womb. If I have a house, no insurance, on my own rural property and there is no law restricting me from burning.. Can I burn it down? Sure I can. It happens all the time.
But what if I rent the house to you and you're in it asleep? It's my property and I have the right to control my property.. Can I burn it down?

A fetus is the private property of the mother .

A fetus is the house and not a renter .

 

[dblack]

You're fixated on your conviction that a fetus is, or should be treated as, a person with legal rights. If you start there, there's no other alternative than authoritarian, state control of the womb. Which obliterates individual rights. No thanks.

Completely untrue.

How so? I'm claiming your argue is based on your conviction that a fetus has rights. How is that untrue? Are you denying it? Why?

The woman had control of her womb. If I have a house, no insurance, on my own rural property and there is no law restricting me from burning.. Can I burn it down? Sure I can. It happens all the time.

But what if I rent the house to you and you're in it asleep? It's my property and I have the right to control my property.. Can I burn it down?

Ok, so are you giving up on the claim that my post was "Completely untrue"? I guess so.

 

[Levant]

You're fixated on your conviction that a fetus is, or should be treated as, a person with legal rights. If you start there, there's no other alternative than authoritarian, state control of the womb. Which obliterates individual rights. No thanks.

Completely untrue.

How so? I'm claiming your argue is based on your conviction that a fetus has rights. How is that untrue? Are you denying it? Why?

The woman had control of her womb. If I have a house, no insurance, on my own rural property and there is no law restricting me from burning.. Can I burn it down? Sure I can. It happens all the time.

But what if I rent the house to you and you're in it asleep? It's my property and I have the right to control my property.. Can I burn it down?

Ok, so are you giving up on the claim that my post was "Completely untrue"? I guess so.

Of course I'm not. All humans have rights and it is not the right of any human to take the life of another human with few exceptions: self-defense, war, punishment for a crime for which they have had a fair trial and due process. You can use dismissive names for the human that a woman made the choice to create and then wants to kill but it is still a human being.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Machining Leveraging Tooling For Therapy "

* Incognito Strapped Lunar Tick Shopping Freaks *

I agree whole-heartedly. Every woman has the right to say no to sex and to not get pregnant. I'm pro-choice; just say no to sex. But when they have made the choice, like all of us, then we must live with the consequences of our choices... Unless and until the unborn child can vote on what happens to THEIR body.

A catholic asceticism specifies that consummate sexual congress should only occur with an intent to procreate , and that definition of sexual congress relegates any deviation into a category of paraphila .

The protestant reformation maintains that ejaculation of male or female while avoiding conception is not sacrosanct as long as it occurs within the privacy institution of marriage .

The catholics are now suspecting that puritans are seeking a public information campaign to promote paraphilia as the new and improved alternative to usual coitus when individuals are not willing to accept the risks of possible impregnation .

Neither catholicism nor protestantism recant that after conception a facilitation of delivery becomes an oblation , and the definition of oblation designates an such belief as religion .

Issue is that public policy interests of a state do not seek to establish religion , rather public policy interests of a state are devised for individuals which have been born , or are of sufficient development for natural birth , and a timeline of natural birth is nearly concomitant with an onset of sentience .

* Protestantism Sporting Onanism Seasons And Wet Dreams Succubi *

Now testosterone levels vary with age and androgens facilitate body humors for turgor while the prostate is amended by each climax .

Which side is supposing that sex for any purposes other than for procreation is " sinful " , that is subjected to " sin mythology " , that is subjected to " gravitational tides of the moon " ?


Paraphilia - Wikipedia
Paraphilia (previously known as sexual perversion and sexual deviation) is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals.[1][2]

Puritans - Wikipedia
In current English, puritan often means "against pleasure". In such usage, hedonism and puritanism are antonyms.[13] In fact, Puritans embraced sexuality but placed it in the context of marriage. Peter Gay writes of the Puritans' standard reputation for "dour prudery" as a "misreading that went unquestioned in the nineteenth century", commenting how unpuritanical they were in favour of married sexuality, and in opposition to the Catholic veneration of virginity, citing Edward Taylor and John Cotton.[14] One Puritan settlement in western Massachusetts banished a husband because he refused to fulfill his sexual duties to his wife.[15]

Onan - Wikipedia
The implication from the narrative is that Onan's act as described is what gave rise to divine displeasure, but even if that is the case it is not clear whether his objectionable behaviour was the refusal to complete the levirate obligation of providing sperm for his brother's widow to continue his brother's name (and clan rights) or "shedding seed in vain", or even having sex with Tamar (who would normally be prohibited to him as a sister-in-law) outside the context of an overriding levirate obligation.

 

[dblack]

You're fixated on your conviction that a fetus is, or should be treated as, a person with legal rights. If you start there, there's no other alternative than authoritarian, state control of the womb. Which obliterates individual rights. No thanks.

Completely untrue.

How so? I'm claiming your argue is based on your conviction that a fetus has rights. How is that untrue? Are you denying it? Why?

The woman had control of her womb. If I have a house, no insurance, on my own rural property and there is no law restricting me from burning.. Can I burn it down? Sure I can. It happens all the time.

But what if I rent the house to you and you're in it asleep? It's my property and I have the right to control my property.. Can I burn it down?

Ok, so are you giving up on the claim that my post was "Completely untrue"? I guess so.

Of course I'm not. All humans have rights and it is not the right of any human to take the life of another human with few exceptions: self-defense, war, punishment for a crime for which they have had a fair trial and due process. You can use dismissive names for the human that a woman made the choice to create and then wants to kill but it is still a human being.

You're not making any sense, nor answering my question. Nor responding to my point in any meaningful way.

The question is whether a fetus should be afforded legal rights before it is born. Claiming that it does establishes a precedent that grants government sovereignty over the contents of our bodies. That's taking state power too far.

 

[Levant]

" Machining Leveraging Tooling For Therapy "

* Incognito Strapped Lunar Tick Shopping Freaks *

I agree whole-heartedly. Every woman has the right to say no to sex and to not get pregnant. I'm pro-choice; just say no to sex. But when they have made the choice, like all of us, then we must live with the consequences of our choices... Unless and until the unborn child can vote on what happens to THEIR body.

A catholic asceticism specifies that consummate sexual congress should only occur with an intent to procreate , and that definition of sexual congress relegates any deviation into a category of paraphila .

The protestant reformation maintains that ejaculation of male or female while avoiding conception is not sacrosanct as long as it occurs within the privacy institution of marriage .

The catholics are now suspecting that puritans are seeking a public information campaign to promote paraphilia as the new and improved alternative to usual coitus when individuals are not willing to accept the risks of possible impregnation .

Neither catholicism nor protestantism recant that after conception a facilitation of delivery becomes an oblation , and the definition of oblation designates an such belief as religion .

Issue is that public policy interests of a state do not seek to establish religion , rather public policy interests of a state are devised for individuals which have been born , or are of sufficient development for natural birth , and a timeline of natural birth is nearly concomitant with an onset of sentience .

* Protestantism Sporting Onanism Seasons And Wet Dreams Succubi *

Now testosterone levels vary with age and androgens facilitate body humors for turgor while the prostate is amended by each climax .

Which side is supposing that sex for any purposes other than for procreation is " sinful " , that is subjected to " sin mythology " , that is subjected to " gravitational tides of the moon " ?


Paraphilia - Wikipedia
Paraphilia (previously known as sexual perversion and sexual deviation) is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals.[1][2]

Puritans - Wikipedia
In current English, puritan often means "against pleasure". In such usage, hedonism and puritanism are antonyms.[13] In fact, Puritans embraced sexuality but placed it in the context of marriage. Peter Gay writes of the Puritans' standard reputation for "dour prudery" as a "misreading that went unquestioned in the nineteenth century", commenting how unpuritanical they were in favour of married sexuality, and in opposition to the Catholic veneration of virginity, citing Edward Taylor and John Cotton.[14] One Puritan settlement in western Massachusetts banished a husband because he refused to fulfill his sexual duties to his wife.[15]

Onan - Wikipedia
The implication from the narrative is that Onan's act as described is what gave rise to divine displeasure, but even if that is the case it is not clear whether his objectionable behaviour was the refusal to complete the levirate obligation of providing sperm for his brother's widow to continue his brother's name (and clan rights) or "shedding seed in vain", or even having sex with Tamar (who would normally be prohibited to him as a sister-in-law) outside the context of an overriding levirate obligation.

Interesting post. I'm not sure what I think of it; it bears thought and perhaps some research. Definitely some things new to me in it.

 

[Levant]

You're fixated on your conviction that a fetus is, or should be treated as, a person with legal rights. If you start there, there's no other alternative than authoritarian, state control of the womb. Which obliterates individual rights. No thanks.

Completely untrue.

How so? I'm claiming your argue is based on your conviction that a fetus has rights. How is that untrue? Are you denying it? Why?

The woman had control of her womb. If I have a house, no insurance, on my own rural property and there is no law restricting me from burning.. Can I burn it down? Sure I can. It happens all the time.

But what if I rent the house to you and you're in it asleep? It's my property and I have the right to control my property.. Can I burn it down?

Ok, so are you giving up on the claim that my post was "Completely untrue"? I guess so.

Of course I'm not. All humans have rights and it is not the right of any human to take the life of another human with few exceptions: self-defense, war, punishment for a crime for which they have had a fair trial and due process. You can use dismissive names for the human that a woman made the choice to create and then wants to kill but it is still a human being.

You're not making any sense, nor answering my question. Nor responding to my point in any meaningful way.

The question is whether a fetus should be afforded legal rights before it is born. Claiming that it does establishes a precedent that grants government sovereignty over the contents of our bodies. That's taking state power too far.

Let me be more clear. Yes, the human being in the womb, the life there because the mother CHOSE actions that put it there, has rights and a voice before its life can be taken.

That grants no government sovereignty over anything else. That's a ridiculous claim. Give an example of what other claim over one's body the government would have just because they don't let a woman kill the child she created of her own free will?