[zeugma]

Referencing the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Hume said the Supreme Court decided that a “generalized right to privacy that they basically invented meant that a woman has a constitutional right to snuff out an unborn life — a human being with a beating heart.”

I have no problem with declaring abortion to be what it is: murder and infanticide.

One thing that I've never understood about this opinion is the conservative hostility against a right to privacy. Where the hell else does a right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" if not from a right to privacy? The Federalists argued against the adoption of the bill of rights because (among other things) they feared that by listing several specific enumerated rights, that others that naturally accrue to you by virtue of your having been born human would be effectively destroyed because "they aren't enumerated". This is the primary driver for the 9th and 10th amendments, which as we've seen from history might as well not exist. It seems their fear was justified.

Of course, the Anti-Federalists were right as well. We've seen what has happened in other english-speaking nations that do not have written constitutions to back up their rights. Does anyone really believe we'd be able to acquire firearms at all if it weren't for the 2nd amendment?

I have no problem whatsoever with a "right to privacy", because the fact of it seems self evident. It is the extension of infantacide to be encompassed by this right that I object to.

[Luircin]

I think it’s because ‘right to privacy’ has been used as an excuse to justify abortion, forcing same-sex marriage on the populace, and other smaller issues. While meanwhile, the people touting a ‘right to privacy’ are eagerly supporting the NSA and its massive domestic spying program.