Does the Constitution guarantee a right to privacy?

[Blue Collar Joe]

Take some of your own advice and actually try reading for once.


You don't know what it means to have the right of privacy to your own body?
hmm how about I put it this way so you might understand.
DO you make choices that control the health of your own body or does the government dictate to you what you must and must not do with your body?[/QUOTE]


Actually, the government does both.
If someone has HIV, for example, in Georgia they are required, by law, to disclose this information prior to engaging in any sexual act, thus dictating what one can do with their own body.
In the instance of a man or woman beating their spouse, even if both the occupants of the house tell the police they cannot enter, they still do so. The state will literally press charges on their own, in spite of not having the victim testifying.
Thus, peoples right to privacy is becoming even more blurred.

 

[jfuh]

Actually, the government does both.
If someone has HIV, for example, in Georgia they are required, by law, to disclose this information prior to engaging in any sexual act, thus dictating what one can do with their own body.

A physical illness that would cause harm to another persons body. Not what I would call invasion of anyone's bodily privacy, but rather the protection of another's bodily rights.

In the instance of a man or woman beating their spouse, even if both the occupants of the house tell the police they cannot enter, they still do so. The state will literally press charges on their own, in spite of not having the victim testifying.

The instance of violence is already established with evidence. Again the state would be protecting the other person from suffering abuse, and thus the protection again of thier bodily privacy.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

A physical illness that would cause harm to another persons body. Not what I would call invasion of anyone's bodily privacy, but rather the protection of another's bodily rights.

The instance of violence is already established with evidence. Again the state would be protecting the other person from suffering abuse, and thus the protection again of thier bodily privacy.

The first one I'll give you gladly. The second one, however, I disagree with. If neither of the couple wish to press charges, then it is their private matter. Much like suicide, if someone were to decide they wanted to die, that is their PRIVACY that is at issue. Thus, privacy has limits, and there is no true inherent right to such under the constitution.

 

[jfuh]

If neither of the couple wish to press charges, then it is their private matter. Much like suicide, if someone were to decide they wanted to die, that is their PRIVACY that is at issue. Thus, privacy has limits, and there is no true inherent right to such under the constitution.

With many domestic violence cases as well as nearly all cases that involve relationships, often the abused is subverted into thinking that they're at fault and deserve the beating.
Source1
Source2
Hence not pressing charges is very much tell tale signs of phsycological trauma. The abused at this point is not in a rational state of mind to make any such decision. Thus again the state stepping in to press charges is again in protection of the abused's bodily right to privacy.

Now as for suicide, this to me is very grey. If it were some guy at the end of the line giving up on life cowardly that again is a sign of mental illness. Yes again the state intervenes.
However, in assisted suicides where the patient is terminally ill and has no chance of recovery whatsoever, yet must indure the tortures of chemo and radio therapy (cancer patients), thier state of mind is very clear and it's much more humane to allow them to die with dignity. Also it need be noted that in such cases the person's state of mind is very clear.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

With many domestic violence cases as well as nearly all cases that involve relationships, often the abused is subverted into thinking that they're at fault and deserve the beating.
Source1
Source2
Hence not pressing charges is very much tell tale signs of phsycological trauma. The abused at this point is not in a rational state of mind to make any such decision. Thus again the state stepping in to press charges is again in protection of the abused's bodily right to privacy.

Now as for suicide, this to me is very grey. If it were some guy at the end of the line giving up on life cowardly that again is a sign of mental illness. Yes again the state intervenes.
However, in assisted suicides where the patient is terminally ill and has no chance of recovery whatsoever, yet must indure the tortures of chemo and radio therapy (cancer patients), thier state of mind is very clear and it's much more humane to allow them to die with dignity. Also it need be noted that in such cases the person's state of mind is very clear.

I am myself adamantly opposed to suicide, and fully agree that it is a cowards way out. However, the mental stability of someone who wants to commit suicide is a very grey area. Psychology is far from a perfect science. I myself doubt the mental stability of someone that wants to commit suicide, however, I also doubt the mental stability of some man that wants to sleep with another man.
Am I wrong? According to most psychiatrists, I am wrong and therefor suffer some disorder.
There are other doctors that think I am sane and the others are suffering a mental disorder.
Thus, it is not a clear point issue. Who gets to decide?
Either way, it is a matter of privacy. Thus, we are always, at some level, intruding upon someones privacy. If a battered wife wants to stay in that situation, what right do you or I have to intrude?
If she is considered sane enough to marry, who are we as a society to say she is not fit to choose her own spouse?
Too much grey when we start adding what the head doctors say, and even then, we can't get them to totally agree.

 

[jfuh]

I am myself adamantly opposed to suicide, and fully agree that it is a cowards way out. However, the mental stability of someone who wants to commit suicide is a very grey area. Psychology is far from a perfect science.

I fully agree up to here.

I myself doubt the mental stability of someone that wants to commit suicide, however, I also doubt the mental stability of some man that wants to sleep with another man.
Am I wrong? According to most psychiatrists, I am wrong and therefor suffer some disorder.

WRong on three parts.

1. Not all suicides involve insanity as I pointed out earlier
2. There is nothing mentally ill about gays or lesbians
3. You can not compare homosexuality with suicide.

There are other doctors that think I am sane and the others are suffering a mental disorder.
Thus, it is not a clear point issue. Who gets to decide?

If one person is hurting themselves or anyother for no rational reason they are mentally ill.

If a battered wife wants to stay in that situation, what right do you or I have to intrude?

The exact reasons I've listed in my former post.

If she is considered sane enough to marry, who are we as a society to say she is not fit to choose her own spouse?

Again as stated above the mental instability is a result from the trauma suffered under the abusive relationship. She may have been sane before the marriage but it is obvious at the point of admitting deservance that she is mentally ill.

Too much grey when we start adding what the head doctors say, and even then, we can't get them to totally agree.

On specific details no, on general trends yes.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

Jfuh, I agree with our exchange to this point, and am not attempting to merely **** you off. I appreciate the fact that you are able to converse about this intelligently.
The whole point I am trying to make is, when one attempts to claim total privacy, there is no such thing.
Unfortunately, not having complete privacy is a good thing, as it does help us to protect those that need protection, even if they are unaware of it, or need protection from themselves.
Well discussed sir!! I have enjoyed this to this point.

 

[jfuh]

Jfuh, I agree with our exchange to this point, and am not attempting to merely **** you off. I appreciate the fact that you are able to converse about this intelligently.

Not seen that way.

The whole point I am trying to make is, when one attempts to claim total privacy, there is no such thing.

I agree to this.

Unfortunately, not having complete privacy is a good thing, as it does help us to protect those that need protection, even if they are unaware of it, or need protection from themselves.

I agree with this too

Well discussed sir!! I have enjoyed this to this point.

Present serious points, you'll recieve serious point in return. Start off as some on this site sadly do with partisan rhetoric (ie you damn liberal, you damn con) and you'll get the exact back.
Good discussion indeed.

 

[tryreading]

In the instance of a man or woman beating their spouse, even if both the occupants of the house tell the police they cannot enter, they still do so. The state will literally press charges on their own, in spite of not having the victim testifying.
Thus, peoples right to privacy is becoming even more blurred.

You are wrong on this. If there is battery on a person, a law has been broken. The state enforces this law. With probable cause, the privacy of these people can be legally violated.

A criminal doesn't have a right to privacy.

 

[tryreading]

The government cannot do this, but as a private individual, I can, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it from happening. If I am on a public street and have a high powered camera, I have every right to take a picture and no one can stop it.
If you doubt it, if you've ever bought a house, then you have instigated this exact act. Real Estate Appraisers are required to drive by houses that have sold and take a current picture of it.

I can stop you in the above scenario. If I call the cops, they will roust you out. If you continue, I will claim voyeurism or harrassment, and you can be arrested. You come back again, you are a stalker, and I'll have you arrested.

The appraiser example is not good - he is performing an expected and desired act, the seller in the house would welcome it.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

I can stop you in the above scenario. If I call the cops, they will roust you out. If you continue, I will claim voyeurism or harrassment, and you can be arrested. You come back again, you are a stalker, and I'll have you arrested.

The appraiser example is not good - he is performing an expected and desired act, the seller in the house would welcome it.

The seller has no say so. The houses that are photographed are previously closed upon and they receive no benefit.
I've had the cops called on me when I was out taking above said picture. All I have to do is ensure that I am on public property. The officers have never once ordered me to disperse. Most of the time, I wasn't even required to show them my Appraisers license. It is simple right of public way.
As for the protection of criminals in the battery example, that is not the issue I was discussing. I was discussing the issue of if the person who was being battered refused to press charges, then they would have no legal recourse.
But, with the actuality of the situation, there is no true privacy rights.

 

[Stinger]

Take some of your own advice and actually try reading for once.

First time I have asked you directly and you have not stated, so do you believe in a right to privacy? yes or no

You don't know what it means to have the right of privacy to your own body?
hmm how about I put it this way ..................

Which has nothing to do with my question and I'm not asking you to put in in anyway other than answer my direct question which you seem desperate to avoid.

If you do believe we have a right to privacy why do you not have a right to sell one of your own kidney's if you want to engage in a private transaction with another person. That would be a most basic right to privacy concerning your own body.

 

[steen]

I'm specifically talking about your own body, do you or do you not have a right to sell your own kidney to someone in a private transaction? If not why not if we have a right to privacy.

Because the right to privacy is to your own body. When you seek to engage in commerce, then there are regulations.

If there is a right to privacy concerning abortion, which has medical, legal and societal implications, then why can't you sell a kidney if you need some cash?

Abortion has no such implications. Nobody are affected by a person's abortion, and medical issues are between the patient and the physician. Your claim is nonsense, it is false.

 

[jfuh]

First time I have asked you directly and you have not stated, so do you believe in a right to privacy? yes or no

Which has nothing to do with my question and I'm not asking you to put in in anyway other than answer my direct question which you seem desperate to avoid.

If you do believe we have a right to privacy why do you not have a right to sell one of your own kidney's if you want to engage in a private transaction with another person. That would be a most basic right to privacy concerning your own body.

:spin: it all you like. However I've clearly already answered your question. As before, try reading. It might help to make use of that grey matter upstairs.

 

[Stinger]

:spin: it all you like. However I've clearly already answered your question. As before, try reading. It might help to make use of that grey matter upstairs.

ROFL a non-answer, what's the problem can't reconcile your position a direct question. What message number did you state your position? You didn't answer it to me so it's hidden elsewhere in the subject thread.

If you have a right to privacy why can't you sell a kidney if you need some money? It's a private transaction between you and a doctor. It's YOUR body.

 

[Stinger]

Because the right to privacy is to your own body. When you seek to engage in commerce, then there are regulations.

A qualifier of no distinction. When someone seeks an abortion it is commerce, the abortion provider makes money and the reciever pays it. Yes what I want to do with my body in a private transaction.

Abortion has no such implications.

Sure it is, it is a commerical transaction.

Nobody are affected by a person's abortion,

So what?

and medical issues are between the patient and the physician.

My desire to sell my kidney to someone is a medical decission involving me and a doctor.

Your claim is nonsense, it is false.

Your denials are empty and self-serving.

So why do you call it a right to privacy when all it is is a right to an abortion? Do men have a right to privacy?

What else does this so-called right to privacy guaranty for us? How come this April 15th we had all better have told the government our most basic private financial data else face legal penalties if we have a right to privacy. Oh I forgot that's not an abortion, the only thing this right to privacy seems to grant anyone.

 

[ludahai]

For anyone who thinks Iraq is becoming a quagmire, they should come to DP and read any thread having anything even remotely to do with abortion. THEN, you will see a REAL quagmire.

 

[jfuh]

ROFL a non-answer, what's the problem can't reconcile your position a direct question. What message number did you state your position? You didn't answer it to me so it's hidden elsewhere in the subject thread.

If you have a right to privacy why can't you sell a kidney if you need some money? It's a private transaction between you and a doctor. It's YOUR body.

You would then be creating an illegal black market for organs. To which then you could have the liklyhood of individuals that are assaulted for organs. Thus again the invasion of privacy to another person's body.

 

[jfuh]

A qualifier of no distinction. When someone seeks an abortion it is commerce, the abortion provider makes money and the reciever pays it. Yes what I want to do with my body in a private transaction.

Sure it is, it is a commerical transaction.

So what?

My desire to sell my kidney to someone is a medical decission involving me and a doctor.

Your denials are empty and self-serving.
So why do you call it a right to privacy when all it is is a right to an abortion? Do men have a right to privacy?

What else does this so-called right to privacy guaranty for us? How come this April 15th we had all better have told the government our most basic private financial data else face legal penalties if we have a right to privacy. Oh I forgot that's not an abortion, the only thing this right to privacy seems to grant anyone.

Have your sources to proove of this money making industry then?

 

[steen]

My desire to sell my kidney to someone is a medical decission involving me and a doctor.

And the recipient, which raises societal issues of being able to buy needed organs if you have money and die if you do not.

So why do you call it a right to privacy when all it is is a right to an abortion? Do men have a right to privacy?

It also gives you the right to control your use of your bodily organs, blood etc. Nobody can force you to give these against your will.

 

[Stinger]

And the recipient, which raises societal issues of being able to buy needed organs if you have money and die if you do not.

Which is inconsequiental to the issue. But what you are proving is that you can only maintain there is a "right to privacy" only when you start placing all kinds of qualifiers on it. If it were truely a right the "societal issues" could not encrouch on it.

It also gives you the right to control your use of your bodily organs, blood etc. Nobody can force you to give these against your will.

I have not raised any issue about force have I, it's a red herring arguement you raise.

You still haven't explained why, it you have a right to privacy you cannot sell a body part, that the government can prevent you.

Want to the privacy asspects of prostitution, if we have a right to privacy why is prostitution illegal in most states? What is more private than what goes on in the bedroom.

Or is it as I asked you and you didn't answer, does the right to privacy ONLY apply to abortion and therfore men do not have a right to privacy?

 

[Stinger]

Have your sources to proove of this money making industry then?

:rofl I don't believe there is a need to prove that people profit off abortion, do you think all the clinics do it for charity or something.

I'm still waiting for one of you to prove there is a right to privacy in light of the premises I have set forth.

What does the right to privacy give me?

 

[steen]

Which is inconsequiental to the issue. But what you are proving is that you can only maintain there is a "right to privacy" only when you start placing all kinds of qualifiers on it. If it were truely a right the "societal issues" could not encrouch on it.

Ah, like there is no "right to life"?

Or is it as I asked you and you didn't answer, does the right to privacy ONLY apply to abortion and therefore men do not have a right to privacy?

Ahem, I DID answer. The right to privacy means that you can't be forced to give your bodily resources against your will. You can't be forced to give blood, even if it would save a life.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Yes, obviously, but the SCOTUS insists that there are additional Constitutional rights to privacy that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. That's where judicial activists and conservatives disagree.

No, actually I know of a lot of conservatives who honestly believe there is no right to privacy in the constitution. With the exception of Roe v. Wade, which was by any definition, very poorly written, every other right to privacy ruling by SCOTUS has simply been the logical continuation of the constitutional right to privacy.

 

[RightinNYC]

No, actually I know of a lot of conservatives who honestly believe there is no right to privacy in the constitution.

Believe it or not, there's quite a few of us...it's not really a far-fetched idea.