A Doctor’s Right to Privately Euthenize and Abort?

Should a physician be allowed to cut, slash and terminate lives if done discreetly and privately. A recently passed Oklahoma law concerning abortion that does not recognize a physicians right to privacy covering his action abortion someone else’s fetus in theory should apply to euthanasia equally well. It is a real stretch of the constitution to say that a citizen’s right to privacy implicitly covers his actions upon others to perform services for them. While an abortion may be legal for a women to perform upon herself, as it might be legal in Oregon and and few other states to take one’s own life if sick and in pain, it is quite another thing for someone else to take take another’s life or abort a fetus even with consent.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/oklahoma-bill-abortion-doctors.html?_r=0

The U.S. Supreme Court has never said that an abortion is moral or implicitly meaningless, it instead simply determined that the issue is hidden under the right to privacy all citizens have. When another citizen becomes involved that privacy has already been compromised. Making it a felony for a physician or anyone else to perform an abortion on someone else appears to be consistent with the concept of privacy.

If privacy were to be used as a general curtain to excuse illegal acts such as possession of stolen goods or buying and selling stolen goods the absurdity would be apparent even to members of the court. The high court should not just decide what things are politically correct to hide behind the curtain of privacy, or how many people can be in the space concealed from legal review.

When a city such as Arlington Texas is asked to build a new 900 million dollar sports stadium for the Texas Rangers to place baseball in with parking taxes raised to help pay for it, wouldn’t the visiting citizen from Houston have a just right to be excused from paying the parking meter tax because he hates the Rangers and has a right to privacy in his parking space without the intrusion of decadent, corrupt government building stadiia when the Zika virus is spreading? Why is the Houstonian’s right to privacy destroyed when he does not want to subsidize a private sports authority?

It is possible with the new age interpretation of the Constitution to make it a rubbery document stretchable in any direction. N-dimensional legal interpretative universes have arrived. The U.S. Supreme Court in Rowe v Wade in effect found that the right to privacy covers illegal acts if they are politically correct. Yet that criterion hasn't been applied equally and well elsewhere. Privacy seems to be a superfluous concept meaningful mostly as a tool for the court to allow political correct yet hitherto illegal acts to  go ahead yet cast aside if an act is disapproved by the court. Privacy as a legal concept is  a middle term syllogisticly speaking used entirely at the court's discretionary whim.