Janet Smith on the Right to Privacy: How Bad Laws Allowed the Culture of Death

Zenit ^ | 2008-10-17 | Annamarie Adkins

[annalex]

This article was reprinted in Catholics for the Common Good under a different set of titles and with corrected links.

[annalex]

Ping

[annalex]

It is not only that in generalized opinion these attacks tend no longer to be considered as "crimes"; paradoxically they assume the nature of "rights", to the point that the State is called upon to give them legal recognition and to make them available through the free services of health-care personnel

[...]

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.

[...]

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".

Evangelium Vitae

[annalex]

Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[jeffc]

But they may be surprised to find out that no such right is in the Constitution.

The Constitution is the wrong place to look for our rights. We don't get them from a document, or a government. Keep spewing the lie, folks! Almost everyone believes it now.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

“The Hammer” knew when he had an opportunity to save Christendom.

The SC has a small window now, too. I wonder if they even care. Some people like to talk and read about historic action, but don’t ever have the guts to do anything when they get the chance.

I wonder how many people could have stopped Hitler or any number of other despots, but didn’t.

[annalex]

Dr. Smith is not saying that rights come from the constitution.

if actions seriously impact upon the rights of others and sometimes our own well-being, the right to privacy cannot rightly be invoked to protect those actions. We have a culture that is fairly schizophrenic on these matters.

That's the foundation of any jurisprudence of rights: the Golden Rule and the Natural Law.

[annalex]

“The Hammer” knew when he had an opportunity to save Christendom

Can you elaborate? DeLay the Hammer?

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD

Fight the Freedom of Choice Act (Unlimited Abortion) Sign the Fight FOCA Petition ASAP & Get Involved!!

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

Charles Martel

[annalex]

Right.

I don’t think the Supreme Court has any historical awareness at all, let alone of the magnitude of the medieval fathers of Europe.

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

I feel certain that Roberts, Alito, Scalia, & Thomas do.

I think the problem is over-intellectualizing things to the point of making oneself incapable of action.

Lord knows we need action.

[RobbyS]

‘Right” here specifically refers to a power claimed by the court, really, not the rights of an individual. By implication, a right is what the judges says it is. Their will is the source of all legal rights.

[MountainFlower]

bookmarked for later reading, when I am more alert.

[wagglebee]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

[victim soul]

ping and thanks Dr. Smith.

[Uri’el-2012]

the U.S. Constitution protects their right to privacy. But they may be surprised to find out that no such right is in the Constitution.

It is in the Bill of Rights, article four.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Shalom b'shem Yah'shua

[annalex]

Yes, but you cannot use that to justify private acts on the basis that they are private alone. This is simply the right to due process.

[Uri’el-2012]

Yes, but you cannot use that to justify private acts on the basis that they are private alone. This is simply the right to due process.

I agree with you as there is no other source
in the US Constitution for support for privacy.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai