Skip to main content

View Diary: The Power Of The State: Privacy Rights and Economic Rights (296 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  feline counterexample (none)
    This isn't really isn't a fair counterexample. Cats are property, but property that can suffer. The law is aimed at protecting the cat, not at limiting your actions. Now if you wanted to copulate with a cow in a non-cruel manner, that might fall under the rubric of privacy rights.

    "To what extent the government can regulate morality" is a better question. Drugs can be considered immoral by some, just like abortion and birth control.  The arguments are stunningly similar.

    Now you could argue that drugs are socially damaging in some way (even pot? steroids? 'shrooms?), but others would (and have) made the same argument about BC and abortion.

    I'm waiting for a supporter of the notion that BC and abortion are Constitutionally protected to take a similar stand for at least some drugs.

    This is why I find the notion that BC and abortion are clearly Constitutionally protected to be dubious - because this idea of a right to privacy is applied rather selectively, even when you narrow it down to the issue of persons' right to do with their body as they wish.

    Note: none of the above constitutes an argument that that BC or abortion should be illegal.

    •  I just have to say. (none)
      That I have seen it the same way for some time, and it's refreshing to see someone else with a clear head in this world.

      Down below I guess I just asked the question. "And how the hell does the right to privacy apply to abortion?"

      I know the answer is that "you can do to your body what you like", but obviously that's not true for most other circumstances and it's too easily argued that the fetus need not be considered a body part, but a separate body.

      But I agree, if you legalize abortion, for god's sake why not pot?

      •  cats and fetuses (none)
        I know the answer is that "you can do to your body what you like", but obviously that's not true for most other circumstances and it's too easily argued that the fetus need not be considered a body part, but a separate body.

        Bingo. And then the fetus could be just as protected as the cat in the counterexample that supposedly refutes my point about drugs. If a cat is worth protecting in a manner that overrides privacy rights, why not a fetus? The whole privacy argument is shaky and inconsistent.

        •  Refutes your point? (none)
          I actually intended my example to buttress your point!  By counter-example, I meant a counter to the notion of a generalized Constitutional right to privacy.  Lacking any other interest, the state may "legislate morality" in the case of cats and of drugs or gambling (to add another example) as well.
          •  oops.. (none)
            I read this as a counterexample to the notion that drugs are a matter of privacy similar to Roe & Griswold - ie, I thought that you were saying that drugs are more like animal cruelty.

            I agree that animal cruelty is another instance of the government restricting privacy (and property) rights, but I think that Roe and Griswold are best understood under the narrower rubric of bodily privacy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site