Abortion should be protected if the fetus is nothing more than tissue. We wouldn't want the constitution to grant the government the right to tell you you can't pick the zit off your face.
If Abortion is the murder of a child, then the "right to privacy" has no meaning, because that right cannot extend to action against another. The constitution clearly gives the government the power to protect the life of each citizen.
I am for sodomy laws, but they are more problematic from a libertarian perspective. What compelling government interest applies to prevent a person from engaging in specific consensual acts? I would argue that the basic violation of nature, the harm of the spread of disease which effect the common good could be used to defend such a law.
But I do err on the side of forcing the government to prove there is a good reason to mess with my freedom.
I understand your position completely- I also despise government meddling. However, we are not discussing politics or political philosophy, but the way in which the Supreme Court has tended to interpret legal precedent. Objection to Griswold does not mean the government should interfere in everything; it simply overturns the "right to privacy" that forms the legal argument for abortion, as well as sodomy and gay marriage, and it is cited by particular left-wing con lawyers as justification for abolishing ages of consent and making pedophilia a Constitutional right. What we think of as "privacy" is one thing, what the Supreme Court means by it is another.