We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence
Such are the words of the Declaration of Independence, setting a precedent for the United States Constitution which was to follow. Both documents give a description of how government should relate to the governed. There are, of course, the "unalienable" rights which the drafters of the Declaration of Independence saw as fundamental rights. Our government's most basic obligation is to protect these rights and also to refrain from their violation. Other rights exist as well, many of which were, to a large extent, designed to augment the first three.
Much today is said of our rights. Along with the right to life, liberty and property we have the right to keep and bear arms, as well as the right to be secured against unreasonable searches and seizures to name a few which the United States Constitution gaurantees to its citizens.
Some go further to say that we have the right to privacy, or even the right to things so mundane as public transportation.
The question of what our rights are and are not is an important question indeed. Our rights are much like the axioms of mathematics or the rules of formal systems. Any good legal argument must prove its legitamacy with respect to the rights of the people. It follows then that as with mathematics, a poorly conceived right can lead to legal contradictions or paradoxes. It becomes a loophole and serves as a threat to the stability and cohesiveness of the legal system.
It is unfortunate then, that many people are careless with the concept of rights. It would make sense for dishonest and selfish individuals to desire loopholes by which to escape the consequences of their criminal actions. However, it is sad to see that it is not just the criminals that perpetuate our rights myths.
The right to "choose" serves as a good example. If we take the right to choose at face value, we might first begin by asking what it means. Has it been defined? Is it even possible to take away a person's right to choose. Since, in today's society, the right to choose has become a catch-phrase and a façade for the right to have an abortion and a right to an abortion is well understood, we might then ask whence this right is derived.
We can start by comparing this right to other rights. For example, those who oppose the right to abortion cite the right to life. This right is stated most famously in the Declaration of Independence, but is specifically provided for in the 14th article of the amendments to the constitution.
The right to an abortion however is not constitutionally provided to the citizens of the United States, yet it has been provided for in the form of court opinion. In this form a woman has the right to an abortion during the first trimester of her pregnancy so long as the court opinion remains as it is and is not reversed or denied constitutionally.
This is not yet even the end of the story however, for court opinion in this case gives us yet another opportunity to examine the people's rights.
According to the supreme court decision in Roe v. Wade a woman's right to an abortion is provided for her because of her right to privacy. (See Griswold v. Connecticut) Putting aside the complete lack of substantive connection between the right to privacy and abortion, we can instead examine the right to privacy in comparison with known established rights. As mentioned above, such rights include the right to keep and bear arms and the right to be secured against unreasonable searches and seizures. Here, once again, we find that unlike these two constitutionally provided rights, the right to privacy is nowhere specified so that it seems the supreme court pulled it right out of the air in order to concoct their decision.
The right to privacy shares many features of its offspring the right to choose. First, it is obtuse and difficult to define. Second, it would seem in its general application to imply rights that would be extremely hurtful to society in general.
For example, the right to privacy, while pleasent sounding, can be construed such that public knowledge of a persons private life is flatly unlawful. Since nothing is specifically delineated as public or private in this generalized right, then it would seem to free a person from any form of public scrutiny whatsoever. This indeed would be very convenient for many, but not for the good of society. Roe v. Wade is a case in point.
Similarly, the right to choose, until tightly defined, would seem to make all laws unlawful, which of course, is a paradox.
The problem with the right to privacy is that, unlike the already problematic right to choose, there is no tight definition for the right to privacy. The right to privacy then remains a wildcard available for anyone to use in proving just about any case they want so long as accomodating or unsuspecting jurors or judges allow.
