The ultimate selfishness of the right to privacy

I sent Democrat committee members an email today urging them to vote for HB 125, the Heartbeat Bill in Ohio. I touched on when life begins, when an unborn child’s heart beats for the first time, that abortion kills an unborn child, and that abortion hurts women. This is, in part, the response I got from one of the representatives:

“I understand your concerns and value your opinion on this important issue.  As a health care attorney and former Vice Chair of the Health Committee in the Ohio House of Representatives, women’s health and privacy rights are very important to me.  Recently, several pieces of legislation have been introduced regarding abortion.”

While I really appreciate a personal response, truly I do, but this is not exactly what I was hoping for. Although I do know that finding a prolife Democrat is harder than it looks, it would behoove all of us to know that while we have labels like conservative, liberal, moderate, republican and democrat, that somehow we can do the RIGHT THING to abolish abortion and abolish the selfishness of women that believe their right to privacy is more important than a child’s right to live.

A pregnant woman has a unique individual living within her body for a short period of time. At the time of conception, a child has been given it’s very own DNA blueprint and soon will have his/her own separate finger prints and blood type.

By 18 DAYS this unique person’s heart will beat for the first time. By the 9th week of gestation, he/she will be complete; all he/she will need is nourishment and time to grow until the time to be born.

In the state of Ohio, it is illegal to smoke in public places – PERIOD. Since it has been proven that second hand smoke does cause cancer and can KILL you, it has been determined that people may not smoke around others in a public place thereby keeping others from getting sick and possibly dying. That being said, we can conclude that the state of Ohio intervened on the behalf of others that do not want to die of lung cancer, in this particular case; those that work in restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. This surmises that the state of Ohio is protecting us from second hand smoke that can lead to cancer and perhaps death but a woman can go and kill her unborn child, at any time during gestation, for any reason because she has a RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

The issue of abortion has been brought before the committee regarding HB 125 in a clear manner that not only suggests but enforces one clear fact:

ABORTION KILLS A HUMAN BEING NOT YET BORN. Essentially, you can go to your local abortion clinic and have your unborn baby forcibly torn from your body but you can’t smoke there.

Privacy rights kill children, plain and simple. The only person in the equation that has any rights is the woman. The baby does not have a right to Life and the baby’s father does not have the right to stop the abortion, to stop the death of his own baby.

Privacy rights…privacy rights…KILL.

Advertisements

3 Replies to “The ultimate selfishness of the right to privacy”

  1. Personal autonomy is not absolute. This is the reason there are laws prohibiting prostitution. You do not have the Right to do with your body what you wish, period. By their logic, by the privacy logic, prostitution should be completely legal under the Constitution. Suicide – if you can believe it – is also illegal. Where is the Right to privacy?

    It’s an excuse used to prevent the diminution of a murderous ideology, and nothing more. This is the reason I despise – despise, I say – liberals.

  2. What Roe did with privacy laws – personal choice – is open up a huge loop hole, not just for abortion on demand throughout 40 weeks of gestation, but it also opened up the ‘private right’ to gay marriage, the ‘private right’ to have sharia law and one day, and I pray to God it never happens, it can open up the ‘privagte right’ for pedophilia and other heinous acts against humanity. We are a nation far from God.

  3. Let’s not forget, too, what the Roe court also said:

    The third reason is the State’s interest — some phrase it in terms of duty — in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. [n45] The State’s interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State’s interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.

    So how big of a concern was privacy, in their mind, when they allowed the State to restrict abortion in late stages. Where’s the privacy argument?

    All of this sets wonderful precedent to overturn that horrible decision.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s