You’ve got it wrong, which I take it is why you swear and use personal attacks to support your case. The fact is there is no right to privacy, and the Supreme Court manufacturing it as a basis for the right to abortion on demand was wrong.
Now see here? I declare your post to be bullshit, which it patently is, and you think it's a personal attack.
Now, if you're your post, you've got bigger problems than my remarks.
But even if you're not your post (I'm sure I've lost you by now), I see by your response that you haven't followed a full sentence I've written. You perceive disagreement as a personal attack, and you aren't even sure about the nature of the disagreement.
So, I'm going to step away and let you argue with yourself.
I've been thinking about this statement. It seems to imply the assumption that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights, it's not a right. That, of course, is ridiculous, as even the Bill of Rights counts those rights it does enumerate as being "among" those the Creator has endowed mankind with.
The "right to privacy" is, imho, implied by the enumerated rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- especially by the right to liberty -- freedom to be one's private self free from molestation of one's private self. One's personal details are one's private property, as it were.
Nonetheless, to use this relationship between liberty and privacy as a justification for murder is insane. I'm not even sure that's a correct interpretation of what the Supremem Court has done, but suppose it were. The right to life of A trumps the right to privacy of B. Any sane person knows this.