Fact #17: The right to not be killed supersedes the right to privacy.
Some defend abortion by claiming that they have a right to privacy. Whether they have an abortion or not is between them and their doctor. Everyone else should stay out of their business. Of course, if abortion kills an innocent human being (it does), then killing done in private is no more acceptable than killing done in public; and the encouragement or assistance of a doctor does not change the nature, consequences, or morality of abortion.
The Constitution does not contain a right to privacy.
There is nothing constitutional about the right to privacy, because that right is nowhere to be found in the United States Constitution. It was declared by the Supreme Court in 1973 as a right higher than an unborn child's right to live.
Those who wrote the Constitution would be shocked to learn that their document, which was dedicated to ensure justice and compassion for all people, has been claimed by some to guarantee a right to kill preborn children.
Is privacy a right? Of course, but society recognizes that some rights are higher than others. Does one person's right to privacy outweigh another person's right to live? Of course not.
Privacy is never an absolute right, but is always governed by other rights.
What would we think of a man who defended wife-beating on the grounds that “What I do in the privacy of my home is no one's business but mine.” ?
The question is, “Does abortion kill babies?” Killing done in private is no more acceptable nor less destructive than killing done in public.
An undated fund-raising letter from Planned Parenthood, signed by Faye Wattleton, attacks the pro-life movement by saying:
We thought that what we did in our bedrooms was nobody else's business.
Her primary argument for abortion is the right to privacy. Though Wattleton's claim may generate both hostility and money, neither I nor the vast majority of pro-lifers I know have ever tried to monitor or regulate what goes on in other people's bedrooms. Those who oppose abortion are pro-choice about choices before a baby is conceived, and pro-life about choices thereafter.
The encouragement or assistance of a doctor does not change the nature, consequences, or morality of abortion.
A physician's advice is authoritative when it comes to tonsils, gall bladders, and cancers. These are questions of physiology and pathology, not morality.
Doctors are trained in medicine and sometimes in surgery, but their moral opinions are not always as reliable as their medical diagnoses (which themselves are sometimes flawed).
Many doctors are conscientious people who place human welfare above expedience and money. Others, unfortunately, do not. Still others are sincere, but have embraced the pro-choice party line without having thought the matter through scientifically, logically, or morally.
That physicians are capable of profoundly incompetent moral judgments was decisively demonstrated by many German doctors during World War II.
Robert Jay Lifton, in his powerful book The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide, documents how normal and intelligent medical professionals endorsed and participated in cruel and deadly surgeries with shocking ease.  They were the best-trained medical personnel in Europe, but they were poor sources of moral guidance.
Doctors who perform abortions are surely the least objective people to discuss abortion with. Their personal and monetary interests in abortion disqualify them. One does not go to a tobacco company executive for guidance on whether to smoke cigarettes.
Killing an innocent human being is always wrong. Period.
Killing an innocent human being is wrong in public or in private, if you have a doctor helping or you don't have a doctor helping. Killing an innocent human being is always wrong. Period.