Replies

Should the specious “right to privacy” afforded to women who wish to kill their kids (in private) be extended to anyone who wishes to murder someone in “private” where there is a genuine and right to privacy? And going one step further, should that slightly different murder be financed with taxpayer funding?

My understanding of Roe is that it is based on a perverse interpretation of the 4th amendment.....am I mistaken?

” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

It seems like invoking the Roe-style interpretation of the 4th amendment would have also precluded them from jailing Kevorkian, based upon the same “rights” of his patients....

(I’m just grumbling aloud and in public, FWIW)

I think you’re right—if Roe is perfect, then women like Andrea Yates, Dena Schlosser, etc. should have the right to be free and not be convicted of crimes for killing their children.

Of course, those were living, breathing, actual children. To the pro-babykillers, a fetus in the womb doesn’t qualify, so it’s okay to kill ‘it’ before it can actually breathe oxygen outside the womb.

Yes, the main precedent to Roe v. Wade was Griswold v. Connecticut, which found that married persons cannot be forbidden from buying contraceptives, because they have a “right to privacy.”

There is, of course, no “right to privacy” as such in the Constitution. There are rights against search and seizure and so forth, but certainly not a right to kill other human beings privately. So when Roe v. wade was passed they babbled about a “right to privacy” in the “penumbra” or shadow of the Constitution. And of course there was talk about “ownership of your own body” and so forth, with the pretence that the embryo is not, scientifically, a separate person.