Friday, July 22, 2005

Amendments Need to be Clarified

Over the last few days, I have been going back and forth from my blog to another guy's blog arguing with him and his disciples (he really does appear to have something of a cult following) over the possible overturning of Roe vs. Wade. That's the landmark court case in which abortion was legalized. Many Liberals are expressing an irrational fear that the new Supreme Court appointee, John G. Roberts will somehow change the previous rulings of the court in this matter.

Personally, I wish he would. I believe abortion is never an option. I believe it is essentially the murder of innocent unborn babies. There are still those among us that believe unborn babies are not actually human beings until they pop out of momma. That premise is, of course, ludicrous and shows a glorious lack of understanding.

But the sad fact is, Roe vs. Wade is in little or no danger of being overturned. I just don't think the Supreme court wants to tackle that volatile an issue just yet.

I also think the constitution and it's amendments needs to be re-examined with respect to the wording before a court can overturn certain rulings. What I am referring to is the 14th amendment specifically. I am just your humble friend and uneducated blogger so until recently I assumed that when Liberals trumpeted the so-called "Right to Privacy", that those words were actually contained somewhere in the constitution. They aren't. Throughout the previously mentioned argument, the 14th amendment was brought up often to support my friends contention that the Constitution does indeed apply to a right of privacy, and that right, in turn, brings with it the right of a woman to abort her unborn baby.

This is the amendment that the left is referring to:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now, as anyone can plainly see, there is no mention of a right to privacy specifically mentioned here. Nor is there mention of a right to kill unborn babies. Be that as it may, I am willing to concede that the right to privacy could be addressed here, in an abstract sort of way. But even if it was spelled out in plain language, I still don't see how that right could possibly be ascertained to mean it's ok to kill babies.

I've said all that so I can say this:

The reference in the 14th amendment that is perceived by some to guarantee a right to privacy is ambiguous at best. It does plainly state that we have a right to life, which flies in the face of the argument that the amendment allows abortion. So does "equal protection".

Which leads me to the original reason that I decided to address this issue today. The wording of the Constitution needs to be clarified. Much of the constitution is too ambiguous and invites inevitable arguments as to the "meaning" of the language. And that is what two of the three branches of government is for. To make the laws and to make them clear.

If we want to declare a right to privacy and/or a right to abortion, the legislature will have to create a specific law addressing those rights, and see to it that it is included in the Constitution so there can be no doubt. Than the Court needs to ensure that the law is interpreted properly. That is their job.

Let me state, for the record, that I happen to agree there should be a clearly defined right to privacy in the constitution. I think we do have a right to privacy, with appropriate restrictions. For example: Let's suppose the wording of the right to privacy specifically says that we have the right to do whatever we damn well please in the privacy of our own home. That shouldn't give Carte Blanche to say, a child molestor or murderer who commits his crimes at home. I do not think abortion should be included in the right to privacy. No, I know it shouldn't. It shouldn't be included at all. Not anywhere in the Constitution.

In short, and in conclusion, It is the legislative branch of the government that makes laws. It is the Judicial branch that interprets them.

Or should.

But I'm just your humble friend and uneducated blogger. I could be wrong.

ADDENDUM: I don't have an addendum today, but I have decided to include Laura Ingraham's featured "lie of the day" in my Blog every day, if I remember. Today's installment follows below:

Lie Of The Day
"I don't have a litmus test. The only standard I have is "will a judge interpret law, not make it," claimed Chuck Schumer.

What nonsense! It's all about Roe V. Wade.


Toad734 said...

I never really comment much about abortion on my blog, mainly because I am a man, I will never have to make that decision, and therefore it's none of my business.

However, I am a believer in personal responsibility; unless you are raped, it is really simple to avoid getting pregnant. However until all the Pro Lifers go out and adopt every kid from every orphanage then they have no right to bitch about it. If they are so pro-life, then how about taking a few more specimens of life home with them to feed, support and raise.

I also think it would be Talibanish for the men of this country to make laws concerning what women are allowed to do. You wouldn't want women making laws saying that men cannot receive AIDS treatment would you? AIDS is a living virus isn't it?

Also, embryos are not alive, they don't have a heart beat, they don't think, they are just a clump of cells; how is that any more important than a clump of mildew in your tub? Is it just because of what it may become in the future? With that rationale are you going want make laws protecting my sperm too? Maybe you should give the life in your tub a chance to become something else, maybe you just haven't given it enough time yet.

If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. If you love life so much, adopt a few kids from the orphanage and raise them yourself.

Or, you could just go buy a bunch of guns, execute criminals, and bomb some more poor brown people in other countries. That would be pro-life.

Etchen said...

Mark-I have to say I wholeheartedly agreee with your sentiments about there needing to be a clearly defined right to privacy and not one about abortion rights. I am not sure that any bill could ever state that we have unlimited ability to do whatever we please in our own homes. I believe there of course should be certain limitations and restrictions, e.g. the usual aguments pertaining to bomb making, child molestation, abuse, etc. I agree that abortion rights need to be kept out of this right to privacy. (Don't misunderstand, I am pro-choice so I wants these rights given to me, but just not in a right to privacy amendment)
Toad734-Not to be confrontational, but perhaps I am just a compleat dolt, btu I don;t understand your meaning in your last paragraph referring to buying a bunch of guns...that would be pro-life" Are you saying that by the death of some you are potentially saving th life of otehrs? If this is indeed the point then how is masacre of one who is intent on doing harm the same as killing an innocent being(whether sentient or not). If this is not your meaning then could you explain it to me?

Erudite Redneck said...

What Toad said. Except for that last bit, which was a brain fart, Etchen.

Oh, and Mark, the Constitution is about asd clear as it's ever going to be, because it reflects compromise after compromise after compromise -- and so does every law passed. The ONLY way to get true clarity in the law is to have an autocracy.

FIAR said...

I disagree with toad wholeheartedly, in almost every respect. The abortion debate has absolutely nothing to do with a woman's control of her body. It's about the civil rights of the baby. As far as your comments go, Mark, I agree, Roe v. Wade wouldn't be in danger no matter who winds up on the SCOTUS. It's just not going to happen. Even if somehow it was overturned, nearly every state, if not all, would pass their own laws permitting abortion. The argument is a ruse.

Mark said...

Toad, I am going to break my own rule concerning not responding to your left wing comments just this once by saying:
Toad, That entire argument is just stupid.

Poison Pero said...

I can't do this one today......I refuse.

Poison Pero said...

Clipped from my blog today (

Liberals: Most state that Roberts is a good man, with an excellent mind and grasp on the law….But they are concerned he will look to overturn Roe v. Wade (Abortion). --> Roberts has never made a ruling against abortion.

They are going to go after his wife, instead.........How pathetic.

Also, The Dems are expected to raise Hell simply for the sake of doing so. It is what they are, and what they do…….Reason is not needed.
This said, I must ask you all a question: Is abortion the #1 concern in America????

IT ISN’T EVEN CLOSE!!!!! Last I checked National Defense is our #1 concern. It always should have been, and always must be……And there are about 10 other issues that are more important as well: Immigration, Social Security, Homeland Defense/National Security, Economy, Employment, Crime, Education, Health Care, etc., etc.

That said, abortion will not be ‘denied’ by the courts. EVER!! Not by Justice Thomas, or Scalia, and certainly not by Roberts………..If abortions are ever lessened or outlawed it will come from the people.

Mark said...

Pero, you know I love ya like a brother, but really. You don't think the killing of 45,000,000 babies a year worldwide is important?

Toad734 said...


I had a comment right under etchen, was it deleted?

Maybe it was just a glitch. Or maybe Mr. Poopy Pants deleted it?

Anyway, my response to etchen said something about how sarcastic I was and that last comment was no different.
However, what makes no sense to me why most (not all) pro-lifers would support the execution of almost anyone convicted of murder (me included except I don't claim to be "pro-life"), They would also support any war the President decided to start, and would do everything in their power to make more guns available on the streets of America. Excuse me for pointing out the hypocrisy in this logic.

RE: Mark

Are you sure about those 45 million abortions per year argument?

If that figure is correct, which it isn't, are you willing to feed all 45 million of those kids Mark?

If you are so concerned with children Mark you can go to UNICEF to get some real facts:

Out of 100 children born in 2000, 30 will most likely suffer from malnutrition in their first five years of life, 26 will not be immunized against the basic childhood diseases, 19 will lack access to safe drinking water and 40 to adequate sanitation, and 17 will never go to school. In developing countries, every fourth child lives in abject poverty, in families with an income of less than $1 a day.

The most egregious consequence is that nearly 11 million children each year – about 30,000 children a day – die before reaching their fifth birthday, mostly from preventable causes. Of these children, 4 million die in their first month of life. In many of the world’s poorest countries, child mortality rates have either not changed or else they have worsened. In sub-Saharan Africa, child mortality averages 173 deaths per 1,000 live births, and in South Asia 98 deaths per 1,000 – many times the industrialized country average of 7 deaths per 1,000.

After going there, read up on the 30,000 gun deaths in this country per year if you are so concerned with life. Of those 30k and like the children from UNICEF, all of them had a heartbeat, and all of them had brain activity.
Embryos have neither.

Daffy76 said...

Toad, the stage at which a developing baby has no heartbeat is so early in a pregnancy, few women even know they are pregnant. I know this because a mere three weeks after I found out I was pregnant with my second child I had an ultrasound in which the heartbeat could be seen. It was a miraculous experience to know that this baby (which I didn't want at the time, by the way) was very much ALIVE.

Even if a child is reared to adulthood in an orphanage at least it will have a life. Tell me what you would prefer, to live in an orphanage, or to be dead? You don't even take into account the childless couples of America who are on miles-long waiting lists to adopt children. What about them? Are we to continue to tell them that we would rather deny them the joys of parenting so that we can throw perfectly good babies away?

And who told you that men are the only ones making laws in America? Last time I checked there were a few women in government too. I resent you comparing a human baby to the AIDS virus. That's just idiotic. Pregnancy is not a sickness or a virus at any stage.

All that aside, I agree that abortion really shouldn't be part of the debate. I don't believe that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned. Our best bet is to encourage women to make good choices before conception--i.e.-make sure you have the means and maturity to support a child before you have sex. If you don't, then don't do it.

This doesn't have any bearing on John Roberts because to my knowledge, Roe v. Wade isn't up for review anytime soon. He seems to be a such a solid choice, I think that the libs are just trying to make something up to be worked up about.

Poison Pero said...

You know I do Mark........All my posts on this topic are "The Prenatal Holocaust".

You read me wrong (or I worded it confusingly).........

What I meant was, how can the Libs stand on Abortion as the 1 item in America to determine everything on.


Francis Lynn said...

"Right to privacy" in the Constitution can be found right alongside "separation of church & state" in the Constitution - nowhere. "Separation of church & state" was parsed from one speech by Jefferson. Abortion is not a privacy right. The majority decision of the court went through legalistic gymnastics in using this term to come to their conclusion. If anything, abortion falls under the "equal protection" clause: Does a fetus have an expectation to equal protection of life? The answer is clear. If the fetus is not defined as human life, then, no, there is no equal protection & abort away. But if a fetus is determined to be human life, then the fetus has full & equal protection of life. And there's the rub. The abortion crowd cannot answer when a fetus is a human being. To avoid this issue they classify a fetus as not human life up until birth ( as Toad put it "a clump of cells"). They are put into this awkward corner because if they give any credence to a fetus being human life at some time before birth, then when is it a human being? 8 1/2 months? Then why not 7 months? Then why not 5 months? Etc, etc. on back. However, it seems many of them don't even consider a partial birth child as a human being, since they favor this form of abortion. Because they cannot define when a fetus is a human being, they are cornered defending an indefensible absolute.

As to the old saw about "adopt children if you're so much against abortion": That argument is disingenuous. Many children are adopted & I would dare say more are adopted by pro-life people then the abortion crowd. It is another issue, but an issue the abortion crowd uses to somehow find a moral equivalancy in their abortion argument. They use similar disingenuous "moral equivalancy" arguments such as: pro-life? But you want killers executed. The abortion crowd does not discern the difference between an innocent fetus & convicted murderers. The abortion crowd goes off on a tangent about pro-lifers supporting a war that kills "brown people" (the insinuation being we are a racist warrior nation). They cannot discern the difference between an innocent fetus & deaths that occur in the heat of war.

But the abortion crowd has to throw in all these silly non-related arguments because what are they left with if they don't? They are back to facing the root question of when is a fetus a human being? Either they cannot answer that, or they choose to answer that nowhere along the 9 months is a fetus a human being or they in their hearts know a fetus is a human being but choose to put the adult human being over the life of the unborn human being. They are just not honest enough to admit it.

As an aside, the abortion crowd uses the phony "life of the mother" argument for abortion. But statistically, few women's lives are in danger if they fail to abort. Another disingenuous argument on their part. The vast majority of abortions are for convenience sake. The abortion crowd just doesn't like to admit it, so they come up with all these other silly arguments.

When the issue is vis a vis an unborn human & a human who carries that life, there is no "women's choice" involved, there is no "right to privacy."

tugboatcapn said...

I wonder if Toad would support the rounding up and executing of all of these poor orphans he mentions...To me it seems to be the same argument. If the aborted babies are better off than the children in the orphanages, then wouldn't the orphans be better off dead?

Mark said...

I am going back to not responding to Toad's innane ramblings. I'll let Francis and Tug and Daffy handle him, they do a better job anyway.

I will say this though. I never delete anyone's comments. I prefer to leave then in there so everyone can see how stupid their comments are.

Francis, Did you know that the word "fetus" is the Latin word for "baby"? At least that is what I have been told. I don't pretend to know Latin.

Francis Lynn said...

1398, from L. fetus "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from L. base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). In L., this was sometimes transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (cf. "Germania quos horrida parturit fetus," Horace), but this was not the basic meaning. The adj. fetal was formed in Eng. 1811. The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is not historic.

A fetus (alternatively foetus or fœtus) is an unborn human offspring from the end of the 8th week of pregnancy (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Prior to this time, the offspring is an embryo.

Erudite Redneck said...


What, specifically, gives anyone else the right to control the fate of one human being who is inside another human being? Whether the Constitution will remain construed the way it is now or not, what is it that authorizes one human being to force another human being to carry a third human being to birth?

I don't know the answer, which is why I'm asking. I'm pretty sure that if someone, legally or otherwise, tried to force me, a man, to do anything medically with my physical body that I was opposed to, I'd put up a fight.

Y'all say there is a greater issue here than what the law says. What is it? By what right, apart from the law, do y'all look at a woman and say "You must do X with your body," or "You must do Y with your body"?

It's beyond a "right to privacy" whether or not it's "constitutional." It sure seems like a fundamental human right not to be forced by others to take an action one doesn't want to perform. It smacks of slavery. It for damn sure sounds like some form of involuntary servitide.

I don't know. Not having a uterus, I don't believe I have a dog in this hunt. Someone convince me why I do.

atoep said...

Interesting writing. Thank you.

Mark said...

You said it yourself, ER, it is a human inside another human. it is inhuman to take another humans life.
I am Pro-choice. I believe a woman has the right to keep her pants on and her legs closed if she doesn't want a baby, and not to if she does. After she makes the mustake of getting herself pregnant, her right to choose should not infringe on another humans right to life.

As shouting fire in a crowded theatre should not be considered a right, neither should infringing on another's right to life. I am sure you've heard that ones rights end when they infringe on someone else's rights. The right of a woman to choose infringes on her childs right to live.

Lores Rizkalla said...

Well done, my friend. Yes, it appears we're on the same page about this. Good work!

Mary said...

This is an interesting thread.

I don't know where to begin when it comes to Toad's comments. The AIDS comparison is really over the top.

Francis Lynn talked about this. The abortion debate boils down to when life begins.

The hardcore pro-abortion crowd don't want to even consider a viable fetus to be a human being.

It boggles my mind to think that there are actually people who believe that even at such a late stage, a woman has a right to choose to kill her child.

Like in the Laci Peterson case, they couldn't stand hearing anyone refer to the unborn baby Conner by name or call the case a double murder.

I've always been against abortion, but at one time, I bought into the idea that every woman should have the right to choose. Then, I had my first child.

After that, I couldn't in good conscience hang on to the belief that it was OK by me if others were choosing to take a life.

Privacy is not a defense for committing murder, at any stage of life.

Francis Lynn said...

What gives the right of a pregnant female human to control the life of a non-born human inside her? Why should she be the sole arbiter? The "it's her body" routine doesn't cut it when it comes to taking the life of a non-born human. The non-born human has a body too. The non-born human is incapable of making a choice whether it wants to live. There is a presumption that it does want to live because it continues to grow & develop. For those who cannot speak for themselves & protect themselves, i.e. children & the mentally incompetent, we have others, in the form of the law, who seek to protect them.

It is no secret to women that if they have sex then they might just get pregnant, no matter the precautions. Going into a sexual relationship with this knowledge, they are forewarned that they could be in the process of creating a human life. Should they get pregnant, then they have forfeited the right to "choose", they have forfeited the right to "control their own bodies." It now becomes a matter between 2 humans - which has the greater right? The non-born one to live or the pregnant one to end that life & not deal with the consequences of that new life? We think erring on the side of life is the greater of the two.

Does a woman have a right to kill her 5 minute old newborn? No, obviously. Can she kill that same human through abortion an hour before birth? If not, then when? A week before? A month before? Two months before? Where is the line drawn when it is okay to kill? But then, we think most pro-abortion people think it is not "officially" a human until birth. That is the defining line for them. 5 minutes before - nope, 5 minutes after - yup. As we demonize & make less human our enemies in war, so too the abortion crowd makes the fetus less human - to either assuage their guilt or to rationalize their killing.

Erudite Redneck said...

How's this: "Your rights end where my uterus begins."

I am not crazy. I am not "hard core." I do not play games with words when it comes to life, whether it's a developing baby or a baby or a grown-up. Not when I'm thinking (and not spouting off).

(Toad, by the way, has resorted to what I call argumentum bullshittum, or alternately, argumentum kitchensinkum -- he started throwing in stuff having nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Come on! "Brown people" and "gun deaths"? Pshaw. Dude. You got to get a better handle on yourself or you'll get nowhere rhetorically.)

BUT, abortion did not start with Roe v. Wade. It did not start with our Constitution. It started when the first woman figured out she could boil some certain kind of leaves and come up with an abortificant.

Different cultures through history have had different ideas on this. This country has had different ideas on this. Used to pretend it didn't happen. Used to then be a little more tolerant on it. Now seems to be more conservative -- or at least queasy about it.

Some 500 hundred years ago, the Church -- that is, the Catholic Church, which was about the only thing going, churchwise -- declared that Indians were, in fact, human beings.

Many of our ancestors in this country believed that blacks were less than human.

Today, some people are so angry or fearful that they want to believe that arabs, or at least Muslims, or at least the Muslims who hate us, are less than human.

All that is to point out that the very concept of "human' is not set in stone -- never has been, although I suppose medical science and modern ideas about race makes many of those old blindspots seem especially ridicious.

So, sure. Call the growing baby human inside a mother a human. But for any one of you to decide that the baby inside the mother is more important than the mother, just because the baby is innocent and the mother is not, in your eyes, is playing God.

And I do not support any legislation, or court decision, that creates gods in this country.

The woman carrying the baby is in the best position to decide what to do with her own body, and the unborn baby's up to the point of viability, I suppose -- ah, but therein is the rub and the thin, hot line of contention.

If she burns for it, so be it. The unborn child, according to the worldview that would make the aborting mother a criminal, will go immediately to paradise, no?

No man, except for possibly (and only possibly) the one whose seed helped create a given unborn child, has any business telling any woman how to handle her pregnancy.

There. If that's crazy, bite me. It's what I think.

tugboatcapn said...

That's another issue altogether, ER. It has always bothered me that if a woman wants to terminate the pregnancy, she can do so with the father screaming and banging on the door outside the clinic, but if the father doesn't want a child and the mother does, she can have the baby and make him pay for it for 18 years. He can't tell her what to do with her body, but she can make him drag his body out of bed and work all day every day for money that he never sees.
Seems a little one-sided to me.
I still say that if we are going to kill children for the sake of convenience, then let's wait until they are about twelve years old, and determine which children are always going to be useless, and do away with those. This way we won't eliminate as many future scientists, doctors, presidential candidates, etc.
Until someone can tell me for sure when life begins, then this plan makes as much sense as any of the others...

tugboatcapn said...

This is an issue that can never be resolved.
If the pro-lifers ever admit that they are wrong, then they have to admit that they are control freaks and they have come down on the wrong side of freedom.
If the pro-choicers admit that they are wrong, then they have to admit that they supported the useless waste of millions of human lives.

Toad734 said...

I am not saying that abortion isn't used as an easy solution to irresponsible people, and I don't agree that it should be used that way once the baby actually has brain activity. However most women / people on this thread know that no form of birth control is 100% effective and not all abortions are performed on stupid high school ho's. From Marks latest post he mentions that a woman can just keep her legs closed if she doesn't want to get pregnant, again he is attacking women, it takes two to make a baby. I have a friend who is married, single income, under 30 and has 4 kids which they cannot afford; Mark, are you saying that a husband and wife are irresponsible by having protected sex if they accidentally become pregnant again? Are you saying a husband and wife aren't allowed to have sex? Even if it’s protected sex, because there is always a chance that the protection can fail, no matter how careful you are? If they were to have another baby, all the people in the family, and society would suffer, especially the new baby. Then the right wing would just bitch about all the welfare families that bring down America. So which is it, do you want abortions which cost you nothing, or do you want your taxes to double?

And yes there are people who are waiting for adoptions because they are only willing to adopt new born white babies that come from good families. I have news for you; the people who are getting abortions are not rich white people, with stable lifestyles, and with artists and doctors in their genes.

Most kids in orphanages are not cute little white babies; they are poor black kids who were at one time born addicted to crack or with fetal alcohol syndrome. Not all of them of course, but do you see why sometimes it just doesn't make sense to bring another kid into the world?

As I have pointed out, there are already too many people, too many kids in poverty, and too many available kids in orphanages for you guys to fight for more. If you want to convince all these girls to give you their babies be my guest but until you are willing to flip the bill for it, or raise them yourselves you will never convince the other side.

If you want to support sterilization once people reach their limit of what they can afford, fine I'm all for it but the right is shooting themselves in the foot when they don't want to make condoms available, then bitch when someone gets an abortion, then bitches when that person needs public assistance to raise the kids which are now just as much your responsibility as it is the mothers.

And yes tug sometimes death is better than life, something the Republicans can't understand but Jack Kevorkian and Terri Schiavo understood this well. It's just too bad Republicans can't apply this "Christian culture of life" to the people who are already on this planet.

Besides imagine what traffic would be like if, from what Mark says, there are 45,000,000 babies aborted per year, which their isn't. Imagine a 16% annual increase in our population, that would put the US over 1 billion people in 10 years. Imagine an extra 450 million more cars on the road.

This would all be so much easier if the morning after pill didn’t have to clear so many hurdles, no one can argue that there is a heartbeat and brain activity during the first day of conception; no more life that what is already in sperm anyway.

Mark said...

I have 5 children. I only wanted 1 to begin with, but it seems I was as fertile as the Tennessee Valley.

Not all of my kids turned out the way I would have hoped. And I wouldn't take a million dollars for any one of them, but I wouldn't give a nickel for another one.

Francis Lynn said...

As it stands now, the only one playing God is the mother.

Erudite Redneck said...

Ah! And, if anyone gets to play the role, it should be thus: "As it stands now, the only one playing God is the mother."

Daffy76 said...

If the mother should be the only one allowed to play God in this whole debate, no mother who drowns five of her children while in a state of post-partum depression should be convicted of any crime. After all, the mother decides what is best for her baby, right?

Which side of the womb you're on doesn't make any difference. If a baby is alive, then no one should have the "right" to kill it-regardless of relationship.

And by the way, yes, pro-lifers are saying that if you don't want children don't have sex. Every time you engage in sex you are taking the risk that you or your partner will get pregnant. That goes for married couples too. You can use protection, but if you are unwilling to bring a life into this world and support it, you should keep your pants on.

Griller said...

And what about BBQ.

tugboatcapn said...

Griller, that's a much more controversial subject than abortion to discuss with people from Maryland, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Florida...
You are REALLY trying to get something stirred up now...

Mary said...

BBQ aside, this circles back to the right to privacy issue.

There are tons of examples where the right to privacy is limited.

Government is all over the bedroom. You can't commit murder there and say no one can stop you because it's a private matter. You can't molest a child there, or commit incest, etc.

We have personal rights, including safeguards to prevent others from infringing on our right to life.

Roe v. Wade put a woman's convenience ahead of protecting a human being's right to life.

To consider abortion morally acceptable, one has to strip the humanness from the unborn child.

I, for one, can't do that.