From: Marshall Clow <mclow@owl.csusm.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:12:22 -0800 (PST)
To: Vin McLellan <tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy
Message-ID: <199702182212.OAA11960@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>>(And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion
>>was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally
>>protected by a woman's right to privacy?)
>>
>>--Tim May
>
>	Whoa! This begs a thoughful response, but I don't have time right
>now.  Might it suffice to suggest that a privacy claim -- a demand for
>control over what concerns her, her alone, or (on balance) her more than
>any other -- seems reasonable to extend to both contraception and early
>abortion?  For many of us, by the same logic, and with the same moral
>comfort.
>
[ more discussion of abortion snippped. ]
>	To my mind, any attempt to control what is done to the woman's body
>(by her choice) while the prospective child is but a bit of enhanced
>potential, much much less than a viable child, is an unconstitutional and
>morally-invalid attempt by others (the state, the church, the country club)
>to pre-empt her will, and prescribe or dictate a wholly new value system
>for her.
>
>         Vin McLellan + The Privacy Guild + <vin@shore.net>
>      53 Nichols St., Chelsea, MA 02150 USA <617> 884-5548

Let's not start this.

Tim wasn't arguing for or against abortion; he made no comments
about abortion. His comment was that the _argument_ used to "legalize"
abortion was unconvincing to him.

If we are going to discuss privacy, that's fine.
It we are going to discuss abortion, there are better fora.


-- Marshall

Marshall Clow     Aladdin Systems   <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu>

Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.