Pri­vacy and life

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor -

Jan.22mark­s­the34thanniver­sary­ofRoev. Wade, when our Supreme Court held that women have a Con­sti­tu­tional right to pri­vacy, and that in­cludes abor­tion.

The word “abor­tion” is not found any­where intheCon­sti­tu­tion.In­ter­est­ingly,the­word“pri­vacy” is also to­tally ab­sent. Yet, the Court said that a Con­sti­tu­tional right to pri­vacy is found “em­a­nat­ing from a penum­bra” of the lib­erty clause of the Con­sti­tu­tion. This is pure non­sense, and th­ese ver­bal gym­nas­tics are a per­fect ex­am­ple of ju­di­cial ac­tivism.

Not­with­stand­ing the lack of le­gal jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for the de­ci­sion in Roe v. Wade, one has to ask one­self why should any right to pri­vacy al­low an ex­pec­tant mother to abort her baby. In­deed, all rights un­der the Con­sti­tu­tion have lim­its, and there are many things which oc­cur in­pri­vatethatthelaw­does­no­tal­low.Be­for­e­so­ci­ety­cansaythat­some­one’sright­topar­tic­i­pate in a cer­tain ac­tiv­ity is de­rived from his or her right to pri­vacy, it must first an­swer the ques­tion, “The pri­vacy to do what?” In the case of abor­tion, the ques­tion is not whether a wo­man has a right to pri­vacy, but whether her right to pri­vacy su­per­sedes her child’s right to life. To saythatit­doe­sis­to­con­tendthat­ev­eryrigh­t­ex­pressedintheCon­sti­tu­tion­haslim­its,ex­cept­the one which is not ex­pressed, but had to be con­trived “em­a­nat­ing from a penum­bra.”

Of­course,theon­lyle­git­i­mate­and­de­centview is that when one in­di­vid­ual’s “choice” will cost an­oth­er­hu­man­be­inghisorher­life,that“choice” can­not be con­sid­ered a mat­ter of pri­vacy. Clare M. Clegg Ponte Ve­dra, Florida

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.