Can't wait to hear the screams about the ACLU on this one...

[Ramo]

Abortion involves at least 2 people...the victim and the aborter(s)

The "victim" isn't a person.

[Kuciwalker]

Yup, the way it's worded he says that abortion isn't protected by a right to privacy because there is no right to privacy.

[Boris Godunov]

What an unholy alliance I've promulgated...

[Ben Kenobi]

That does seem to be the case.

If so I echo Berz's question.

It's not necessary to oppose a right to privacy and abortion, so abortion should not be the issue of the thread.

[Boris Godunov]

Well, just because Limbaugh agrees with Bork on one constitutional matter doesn't mean he's required to agree with him on all. Kinda like how one can agree with some of the things Jesus said, but not necessarily agree with everything he said.

[Berzerker]

The "victim" isn't a person.

It's a kitty?

[Boris Godunov]

Are fetuses currently legally recognized as persons?

No. Until they are, there aren't two persons involved, so under your rationale the right to privacy still stands.

But abortion is off topic here.

[Berzerker]

When did you start growing? Using the law to justify an illogical definition is problematic. Some people claimed blacks weren't human either to justify slavery...

[Boris Godunov]

If you want to argue that not defining fetuses as persons is unjust, that's fine (for another thread), but its not the point. The point is that currently, they aren't legally considered such--for good or bad--and thus the right to privacy notion still stands.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, just because Limbaugh agrees with Bork on one constitutional matter doesn't mean he's required to agree with him on all.

I'm still unsure how you arrived at this point from my last post. I am interested in seeing how Bork explains why we should not be unreasonably searched without an explicit right to privacy in the constitution.

Thankfully our rights don't derive from the Constitution.

Missed this. What then do our rights derive from?

[OzzyKP]

The ACLU rocks.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

What would you do without this icon?

I'm still unsure how you arrived at this point from my last post. I am interested in seeing how Bork explains why we should not be unreasonably searched without an explicit right to privacy in the constitution.

Well, you weren't specific, so I assumed you meant the last question Berz posited, which was Limbaugh's stance vis-a-vis Bork's opinion on gun ownership and the constitution.

Missed this. What then do our rights derive from?

Nowhere...they're inalienable. There are countless rights we possess that aren't enumerated in the Constitution--the right to eat, for instance. Its enumeration of some specific rights does not mean they aren't the only ones we possess.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
so abortion should not be the issue of the thread.

Indeed, it is not. The news Item Boris posted doesn't mention abortion at all, but it speaks about how Limbaugh's privacy was broken, as his medical files were checked. The ACLU believes such a breach of privacy is unconstitutional.

[Ben Kenobi]

At least I ask when I don't understand something.

Nowhere...they're inalienable.

I agree that they are inalienable, but that's not the same as saying that they do not come from something. Inalienable merely means that they are not transeferable, and cannot be taken away.

[St Leo]

If you are impartial, you are against us. ACLU is against us.