Right to Privacy

When I ran across Craig Crawford's blog the first time, I read a post he wrote about whether a reporter should be compelled to reveal his sources. He seemed to me to be reporting it in a objective, neither right nor left manner, which I found refreshing.
So, it's my fault that I jumped to the conclusion that he couldn't possibly be a liberal, as they are not known to be objective about anything. I was wrong. His blog is a hotbed of left wing philosophies and ideologies.

One particular frequent commentator on his posts, Sheila, I found particuarly respectful in juxtaposition to the normal mean spirited name calling and personal attacks that characterizes most liberals. However, she took me to task once for labeling her a "Liberal" in a negative connotation. I responded that I would call her what she would like to be called if she would please tell me what she would like to be called instead. I received no answer from her on that. Since then, I learned that Ann Coulter says that Liberals hate to be called Liberals, so that, in addition to the fact that all her comments left on Crawford's blog tells me that she is best described as Liberal so I will continue to call her that. Actually, I suspect that Sheila is either Crawford's wife or girlfriend, because she is always the first to comment on his posts, and invariably gushes over his absolute correctness on his opinions. If Sheila were to tell it, he is never wrong about anything.

I happen to respectfully disagree with her on that. I believe he is wrong quite often.

I have returned on occasion to offer my comments on some of his posts. He goes along with the rest of the liberal media in supposing that Karl Rove is guilty without a trial, or indeed, even proof.

This morning, I visited the blog again to find the expected objections to the nomination of Judge Rogers to the SCOTUS. In it the point was made that abortion falls under the "Right to Privacy" provision in the Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment. One commentator said this: "Kiss Roe goodbye. Looks like it will be a return to the back alleys. Unbelievable" Sheila added this comment to the comments section of Crawford's blog: "If RoeVWade was over turned, there would still be States rights to consider and I know at least 10 states that would up hold it. Yes, it would be horrible"

She said overturning Roe vs Wade would be horrible! To which I responded, "You think NOT killing babies would be horrible?" Then she said, "Nothing is horrible about staying out of someone's private decisions or out of their bedrooms.

I would never throw my personal beliefs down your gullet. I am the type of person who doesn't condon abortion, but I would NEVER EVER shove my beliefs down anyones throat according to so called ideological authority.

It's just plain wrong."


Sheila and others argued that it isn't the possible repeal of abortion per se that they object to, but rather the invasion of privacy that they say is guaranteed by the 14th amendment to the constitution.

I assume they are referring to this:

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.

Could someone please explain to me where, in this amendment, we are allowed to kill unborn babies? Because the way I see it, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life..." means we don't have the right to kill anyone without due process of law. And I think this exception would probably apply to executions of convicted felons. I don't see how this in any way supports the conclusion that abortion is either legal or ethical. Also, refer to this statement: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I thought babies were "persons" and had the same right to equal protection also. But I am just your humble friend and uneducated blogger, so I probably don't understand. So someone explain this to me.

After all this discourse someone else in this site said to me: "Mark-- take this somewhere else please. And for the record, there is no legal consensus on whether abortion is the killing of a baby, so let's move on. We all understand that the issue over abortion is that some people believe it's murder and others don't. Move on." This was posted under the name "Anonymous", of course.


I, in turn, responded, ""no legal consensus on whether abortion is the killing of a baby"?
What do you call it? I would love to know how taking the life of an unborn baby is not considered killing."

As an aside,I find it interesting that Liberals are so fond of using the phrase, "move on" whenever they know they have no argument. This started with Clinton when he was trying to avoid the ramifications of the discovery that he was participating in extra curricular activities with a White house intern. In fact, Liberals created an organization with that name.(moveon.org)

The debate goes on.

And just for the record, I sincerely hope, if Roberts gets confirmed, that he does attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade, if for no other reason than to piss off the liberals.