Is There any Difference between Supporting Woman Privacy Right & Supporting Abortion?

In my opinion, there is.

The first is trying to protect woman’s privacy. And in turn, her health, her choices, her right for information and help in need.

The church need to teach men & women not to engage in unlawful sex.

I do not believe in the attitude of prolife, but to leave woman alone in her problems.

To love the woman is easier than to love a fetus. Thus, to say we care for the fetus life but to abandon the woman is a religious lie.

Porn is a billion dollar business. If porn is made illegal, then there would be less abortion. Porn business continue making money out of young women, and at the same time, religious people remove their privacy right. We basically feed them to the lions.

If we enslave women, we shape them to give birth to the sons of the slave woman. Hagar was forced to give birth to Abraham son, not as a wife, but as a slave woman.

The result of this combination: big porn business + ultra religious prolife = gender slavery. It is not a surprise that sometimes extreme religious tend to enslave women, as much as porn & prostitution too.

1 Like

How old are you? Where did you get your religious education?

4 Likes

And you are 100% correct
No one has the right to murder anyone, even if it is in private.

Child murderer as a privacy right is just as ridiculous as child murder is a healthcare right.

3 Likes

I am young enouh to hope
Old enough to worry about the future of our humanity
And am still learning about life

3 Likes

Yes, right to privacy predates abortion. It comes from Griswold v. Connectuit case that involved privacy between married spouses and their privacy regarding what they do behind closed doors. Specifically it involved a law banning contraception and Court ruled it violated the married couples right to privacy since it is their business what they do behind closed doors. Now obviously the Church would disagree with the morality of that ruling but you’re right that the original right to privacy was not just directed to women, it was directed to the married couple and was not directed to abortion but instead to contraceptive drugs. The Court even admitted there is no right to privacy in the Constitution but instead that the right to privacy can be found in the shadows (“penumbras”) or in the shadows of shadows (“penumbras of penumbras”) of the text of the Constitution. So its clear to see how much shaky ground Roe v Wade is built on.

If persons were openly recognized as persons prior to their birth, obviously privacy would not protect those who victimized unborn persons in any way, whether it was in private or not or whether the existence of the person presented a problem for the privacy of anyone else or not.

So, while I believe in privacy rights, I also believe that a person is a person and deserves the human rights of a person from the moment of conception, something US law does not recognize. That is why I can’t support a right to choose or perform abortion even though I do support the concept of privacy.

1 Like

All I know is this:

It is more prolife to campaign against porn business and promiscuous culture, than to merely illegalize abortion.

Which woman want abortion for no reason?

If a woman is pregnant with the child from the man who love her whom she love too, why would she need any abortion? Was she being forced by the culture to sleep with the man eventhough she knows she’s not ready yet?

So, repair the culture, instead of removing woman’s privacy right. Besides, the more promiscuous a culture, it will also open door to religious extreme teachings.

Both promiscuity and extreme religious teachings demand unreasonable things from women. Because one is of the law of the flesh, the other is of the religious law. Both are two face of the same coin. Both promiscuity and false religious extremes give birth to children who are slaves to the flesh.

Read Galatians 4; Romans 7

So, get rid of the promiscuous culture, instead of get rid of woman privacy right.

Doesn’t the church talk about the big word: INCULTURATION ? Now is the time.

I agree porn is a big problem. I see no political way to eliminate it. Any kid with a smart phone can get porn in abundance. I feel the social harm will some day be recognized and maybe some restrictions can be passed.
However, It is not an either or situation but both! We are not eliminating a women’s privacy right to make abortions illegal. We are just recognizing the right of an unborn person. Jesus was present on the earth, took on human form, from the moment of conception. Elizabeth gave witness to that fact!
Until we recognize the sanctity of human life we don’t have a chance solving other problems like Porn in my opinion!

2 Likes

That privacy involved you - before you were born. So, it wasn’t really private, was it?

So… what do you think entails a woman’s right to privacy? I’m a big privacy advocate. I work in IT; and am concerned about the erosion of privacy. But in now way do I think privacy allows abortion. Just wondering if we are on the same page.

I agree completely that we should eliminate porn.

Supposedly you live in a country that illegalize any form of weapon. Even to own a tazer gun at home can send you to prison.

So, to cut the story short, there is this middle age woman who join a catholic forum. For some reason, she notice there is something stolen from her possessions on daily basis. Today maybe a bottle of cosmetic, tomorrow a pair of scissors, a fork, and so on, but mainly her cosmetics. So she told her husband and son that somebody has been intruding into the house. Her husband and son do not believe her. And the thieves knows this. In fact, the thieves purposefully steal to get her attention, but not to get her husbands neither her sons attention. They are terrorizing her. They move like ghosts (but they are not), the home cctv cannot catch them. This even make it difficult for her to tell anyone that there is intruder, because cctv catch nothing.

So, she pray angrily to God, that she wants to “catch” these intruders as they are in action. Until now this has not happen yet. And even if it happens: if she catch these people in action, what can she do? She fight them with homemade pepperspray?

Now, if you think there is no country in the world forbid citizen & residence to own a tazer gun in their own home for selfdefense, you are wrong. This country will penalize owner of tazer gun and the use of it even if there is an intruder.

Your opinion?

Well the problem is, whatever one thinks of Griswold v. Connecticut, it hardly provides a platform for Roe v. Wade. As John Hart Ely, who was pro-choice by the way, noted in his critique of Roe v. Wade:

“Commentators tend to forget, though the Court plainly has not, that the Court in Griswold stressed that it was invalidating only that portion of the Connecticut law that proscribed the use, as opposed to the manufacture, sale, or other distribution of contraceptives. That distinction (which would be silly were the right to contraception being constitutionally enshrined) makes sense if the case is rationalized on the ground that the section of the law whose constitutionality was in issue was such that its enforcement would have been virtually impossible without the most outrageous sort of governmental prying into the privacy of the home. . . Thus even assuming (as the Court surely seemed to) that a state can constitutionally seek to minimize or eliminate the circulation and use of contraceptives, Connecticut had acted unconstitutionally by selecting a means, that is a direct ban on use, that would generate intolerably intrusive modes of data-gathering. No such rationalization is attempted by the Court in Roe–and understandably not, for whatever else may be involved, it is not a case about governmental snooping. . . Unfortunately, having thus rejected the amici’s attempt to define the bounds of the general constitutional right of which the right to an abortion is a part, on the theory that the general right described has little to do with privacy, the Court provides neither an alternative definition nor an account of why it thinks privacy is involved. It simply announces that the right to privacy “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.””

(emphases original, footnotes omitted)

Neither does Jewish law recognize that an unborn baby is a person, at least not a fully developed person. So there is a religious conflict here as well as a privacy issue.

Griswold = Governmental snooping into whether couple chooses to use contraception

Roe = Governmental snooping into whether woman chooses to bring pregnancy to term

I’d say it is a philosophical conflict, since the rationale behind the stance is an interpretation of how science ought to be applied to law, and not a religious interpretation of when human life begins. One wouldn’t have to be a theist at all to share the Catholic view that people are worthy of protection at some point before they are born and even from conception. (After all, the eggs of bald eagles are protected, right?)

Or, until we recognize that Porn is violent to women and children, we don’t have any chance to understand the sanctity of human life.

When pope francis gave speech to US congress, I was hoping he would mention porn. He didn’t.

Besides why does it need to be a political way? The church is sent into the world on a mission to change the culture of death. Not to succumb to it. By not speaking against porn, but force women to carry term, as easier way out, is, in my opinion, succumbing to the world.

Even as a moral teaching it cannot sustain itself as being the most moral way. Let alone to uphold the dignity of human person. Gender slavery is the essence of the loss of that dignity

Science is sufficient to recognize an unborn person as a human being.

The problem is in having the law recognize an unborn person as a human being with human rights.

But just as I don’t have the privacy right to kill my 3yo, or my 10yo, or my 15yo, or however old they happen to be, I shouldn’t have the privacy right to kill them the day before birth, the week before birth, the month before birth, or five months before birth.

Whether at 3, 10, or 15, they’re still the same person— just with different development, and dependent upon me in different ways. And likewise, at -1 day, -1 week, -1 month, or -5 months preterm, they’re still the same person— just with different development and dependent upon me in different ways.

My job is to nurture them into independent, self-sufficient human beings who can be productive members of society and do what they’re supposed to do with their lives-- and the way that I do that changes with time. When they’re infants, it means feeding them and keeping them clean and doing everything for them, and when they’re adults, it might mean tough love and forcing them to get a job and stand on their own feet and not expect me to coddle them while they spend the day playing video games.

But that obligation starts from the moment of their existence, not at some arbitrary point afterwards. Because once you start picking an arbitrary point— why not make it some other arbitrary point? Or why have an obligation at all?

1 Like

This is downright silly. Abortion, at the end of the day, is a medical procedure. It is hardly “snooping” for the government to restrict, regulate, or outright ban the usage of a medical procedure. Even if one wants to get some kind of extremely broad definition of “snooping”, one can hardly claim that is equivalent to the government entering the home to either catch people in the act or search for signs of the usage of contraceptives.

Indeed, as John Hart Ely added shortly after the passage I quoted:

“I suppose there is nothing to prevent one from using the word “privacy” to mean the freedom to live one’s life without governmental interference. But the Court obviously does not so use the term. Nor could it, for such a right is at stake in every case. Our life styles are constantly limited, often seriously, by governmental regulation; and while many of us would prefer less direction, granting that desire the status of a preferred constitutional right would yield a system of “government” virtually unrecognizable to us and only slightly more recognizable to our forefathers. The Court’s observations concerning the serious, life-shaping costs of having a child prove what might to the thoughtless have seemed unprovable: That even though a human life, or a potential human life, hangs in the balance, the moral dilemma abortion poses is so difficult as to be heartbreaking. What they fail to do is even begin to resolve that dilemma so far as our governmental system is concerned by associating either side of the balance with a value inferable from the Constitution.”

For the record I, like Hugo Black, find the logic in Griswold to be shaky. But again, even if one accepts it as accurate, it hardly provides basis for Roe v. Wade.

You know, I really hate it when the government snoops into whether I kill people who owe me money… their job is to regulate commerce, take care of defense, and keep the roads nice. Not in protecting the rights of their citizens for life, liberty, and happiness… especially when they’re in the way of my own life, liberty, and happiness.

I’m not stating my personal opinion. I’m merely stating the rationale of the Court. I agree with you.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.