"On the other hand, the liberal position that somehow the right to privacy gives a woman the right to kill her child is insane."
I agree. The fourth amendment concerns GOVERNMENT seizing without reasonable warrant a person or their property and belongings. So, the right to privacy is certainly constitutional and should be protected in the manner in which it was written, however, abortion clearly does not fall under the amendment and is clearly judicial activism.
Here’s why. If a child, unborn or not, is labeled as "property" that is protected under the fourth amendment, then abortion could easily be overturned just by citing the thirteen amendment which outlawed slavery.
However, the abortionist found a loophole by claiming that the fetus is not it’s own person since it resides within the mothers body, making the fetus the property or same person as the mother. Science clearly shows this as not the case since the fetus, at the moment of conception, has it’s own unique DNA, can be of different gender, blood type, (the host and fetus blood do not mix), et. In truth, the fetus relies on the mother only for protection and nourishment while it develops but is its own unique human being. What is needed then is a simple truthful scientific definition of what constitutes an individual human being and the role the host plays during pregnancy. Establish that definition legally and abortion falls apart all over itself.
All this seems like common sense in us but in practice it can be quite difficult…especially legally.
The argument of viability before the third trimester defining personhood is ludicrous. Does an old man with no brain damage lose all his rights because he needs support to live?
Not to mention the age of viability is different now than when Roe was decided. Why doesn't NARAL want the point at which abortion is allowed to be changed in order to be consistent with their argument?