Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Will....do you believe the Constitution provides a right of privacy, which was in part the basis for the Griswold decision (overturned a state law that prohibited sale/distribution of contraceptions) and the Roe decision?
Both recognized a Constitutional "right of privacy" either as an unenumerated right in the 9th amendment or as interpreted in the first clause of the 14th amendment.
If you believe in a Constitutional "right of privacy", you cannot enact a law that violates a woman's right of privacy.
|
The "right to privacy" is no explicitly stated in the Constitution. As it's only inferred (privacy of beliefs [1st Amendment], privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers [3rd Amendment], privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches [4th Amendment], and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination), the right itself does not include all information. In addition to that, information is not a part of a woman's body by any stretch, and if it is connected to the biological component, then it's not unreasonable to connect it to each part of the whole biological component, sperm and ovum. As such, the information belongs to each party who plays a direct role in the act of procreation, the mother and father. In addition to this, after the child is born, the ownership (or more correctly the responsibility) lies with
both parties. As such, I believe that in fact it could be a violation of a father's privacy to withhold information on a joint venture. While the property belongs to the mother, the information does not, necessarily.
I'll summarize:
1) the Constitutional right to privacy, being implied, is subject to interpretation
2) As the father plays a direct role in the creation of the fetus and bears responsibility upon birth, the information is his as well as the mother's.