I prefer to point out that, if one accepts the right to privacy that “emanates” from the “penumbra” of our Constitution and subsequently permits abortion on demand up to and including the ninth month of gestation, there is no way that such a right to privacy would not also extend to the right to rent out reprodutive organs according to the wishes of their owner.
It all might be morally reprehensible to any decent person, but this is what happens when written law is rejected in deference to someone divining the emanations of our body of law.
Speaking of which, isn’t “emanation” just a Three-dollar word for a fart?
I agree with you. When I was debating abortion with a lady, she said that a women should be able to do whatever she wants to do, with her body. I asked whether prostitution should be legal, and she said no. I said, “You said a woman should be able to do whatever she wants, with her body. You just contradicted yourself. You think it’s okay to murder a baby but not okay to have sex for money.” She said, “Abortion doesn’t kill a baby. It’s just a bunch of cells.” I might expect that from a lady who didn’t have kids, but her one year-old daughter was a few feet from us.
Aren’t “emanations” akin to “auras”, and as such rightly considered to be of validity only to hte drugged counter culture types?
Hmmmn - given the many rulings which are verrrry counter to America, perhaps the Ass-inine at SCOTUS need to be tested for drugs.