Wednesday, July 20, 2005

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.(

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.


Mary said...

Hi, Mark!

That "right to privacy" thing is only trotted out by the Left when it's convenient. Then, they tuck it away when it blocks something they're against.

It's used to justify what many would deem unjustifiable, like killing babies.

By the way, some libs like to be called "Progressives."

A liberal by any other name is still a liberal.

Daffy76 said...

Don't you think that if we haven't determined a legal consensus as to whether abortion kills a baby or not, we should stop doing them until we know?

People are just ridiculous when it comes to this issue. My favorite piece of flawed logic on this one is the one which states that women have abortions to benefit the babies they abort. That for one reason or another the mother wouldn't have been mature enough or financially stable enough to support the child so it's better off DEAD. I'm sorry, but Mothers who kill their children are just not good mothers. I feel my blood pressure going up everytime I think about this issue.

It's time for our culture to realize that you have to deal with consequences of your actions, even when they are difficult and inconvenient. It is never convenient to have a child. I have two of them, and they are as much hard work as I've ever had to do and totally worth it.

Erudite Redneck said...

I usually stay out of this fight because it's hopelessly deadlocked. But I agree with this one point: If you are against abortion, don't qualify it, and show your own bias, with "except to save the life of the mother" or "except in the case of rape or incest." That blows your cover and shows that the issue, to you (that's a general "you," Mark, not directed to you personally), really isn't about "saving babies" but is about who gets to decide whether an unborn human being gets to be a born human being.

Either you're for life, or not.

And please tell me how anyone can be against abortion but for the death penalty. I've never understood that -- unless, again, it's really not about saving life, but about who gets to have the power to decide.

Erudite Redneck said...

BTW, why should any LIBERAL (AIIIGHHHHH!) stay 'round here to hear you out when you keep makin' these kind of baseless and silly,
broad assertions?

"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 mean, if you want to have this deal wind up bein' just you and a few folks who agree with everything you write, well, OK. But come on, dude. Do you really just want to be left with yes men (and women), and trolls. ???

You can be persuasive. You should stick to trying to be persuasive. But that other stuff, that name callin' and such that you say you don't like, why, it comes across about like a cow pissin' on a flat rock. Stuff goes everywhere but it don't fdo anybody any good.

Not tryin' to make ya mad. Tryin' to get you to see that you can be a name caller without actually callin'people names. :-)

tugboatcapn said...

ER, I can be for the death penalty for convicted murderers, and rapists, and child molesters, and people who leak CIA agent's names to the press, (you know, heinous unredeemable criminals like that...) And be against the termination of a viable human tissue mass that never hurt anybody without contradicting myself at all.
It is about the protection of INNOCENT life. If a murderer is executed, that murderer can no longer murder, so by removing him (or her) from the planet, theoretically we save innocent life.
No contradiction.

tugboatcapn said... name here!)

Mark said...

ER, the very definition of Liberal in our collective, colloquial understanding of the term, suggests that it is impossible to be objective and be a Liberal at the same time. The same can be and is be said of conservatives. I am not objective by any means. I have very definite opinions and I created my blog to express them. If anyone thinks I am ever objective they haven't been reading my blog.

Erudite Redneck said...

Good answers, both.

Erudite Redneck said...

No, I take that back. It's oversimplistic:

"the very definition of Liberal in our collective, colloquial understanding of the term, suggests that it is impossible to be objective and be a Liberal at the same time. The same can be and is be said of conservatives."

Anyopne who says that is wrong. I am um, liberaler than you, but ZI can be objective -- and I work to attain it every day. You could too, but, by your own admission you choose not to.

There is no such thing as genuine objectivity. ... Never mind. You are on a rage over the "lie" -- if that's what it was -- in the amicus brief. Rage on, brother. :-)

tugboatcapn said...

This is why I get my news and commentary increasingly from the blogs and the radio.
Let the tv networks and the big papers claim objectivity all they want.
Here we shout our bias from the mountaintop, and I for one will not apologize for it. At least everyone knows where I am coming from.

Toad734 said...

I think what you are looking for is in the same place where the 2nd amendment says you can have automatic military weapons.

tugboatcapn said...

It never says we can't, Toad...

Mark said...

Hmmmm, if Osama has an automatic weapon and he is pointing it at me, I certainly hope that I have access to something more effective than a slingshot.