The case for 'originalism' - (return to original intent of Founders & Ratifiers is essential)

PITTSBURGH LIVE.COM ^ | JUNE 5, 2005 | EDWIN MEESE III

[tahiti]

" Do the acts of pedophiles and wife beaters deserve privacy?"

The acts of the above violate the rights of others so their can be no right of privacy when a person commits a wrongful act.

Prof. Barnett in his book, "Restoring the Lost Constitution makes the following statement which will help you with your example of "overly broad" rights:

"Natural rights define the boundary or space within which people are at liberty to do as they please provided their actions do not interfere with the rightful actions of others operating within their own boundaries or spaces."

[Tailgunner Joe]

Thus, a fetus is rendered to nothing more than tissue in a woman's body such as a kidney or an eye, in which the "right to privacy" allows for her control of that tissue.

That's not so. If her bodily organs were hers to "control" then presumably she should be able to sell them. She can't even sell her fetus, only kill it.

[sourcery]

If her bodily organs were hers to "control" then presumably she should be able to sell them.

Yes, she should. But that's not the issue, and never has been. The issue is whether or not an embryo or fetus is morally a person with its own right to life. That's the controvery--nothing more, nothing less.

[tahiti]

"She can't even sell her fetus, only kill it."

I have an adopted daughter.

Because "private" adoption agencies house, feed, cloth, and provide medical services to the birth mother during gestation, in order to help protect the fetus from an irresponsible birth mother,I would say that is in effect, selling her fetus.

[Tailgunner Joe]

If she's too irresponsible to have a baby, then giving up her baby is the responsible thing to do. Did she get money for it? If she didn't then she didn't sell it.