[SilasX]

That doesn’t help. It just asserts that “oh no, it’s obviously not unlimited” but not how or why, in line with the core arguments used.

Did you read the article? Its whole point is that Roe is a dubious application of privacy, even if you support the ruling’s conclusion.

I assumed from your confident tone, and insistence that the parent comment was a strawman, that you would be able to shed more light on this topic. At least, that’s where I would be if I used that tone.

[lemonlime]

Their reasoning in Roe is pretty detailed and they do not come anywhere close to saying that the right to privacy legalizes everything done in private. Have you read Roe v Wade?

Let's look at fraud. Who do you think is arguing that fraud is illegal if done in private. Can you link me to any example anywhere on any medium?

Which part of the article do you think is relevant here? I have read many books by actual constitutional law scholars on these cases. I don't understand what you think I'm supposed to see in a 1,000 word blog post by a random non lawyer that doesn't know anything in particular about constitutional law.

>I assumed from your confident tone, and insistence that the parent comment was a strawman, that you would be able to shed more light on this topic.

I'm not just insisting it's a strawman. It is a straw man. Can you link me to any argument made by anyone ever on any medium that is even remotely close to what he is saying? (that everything done in private, say, fraud, murder, arson, etc.) should be legal?

[car_analogy]

> I'm not just insisting it's a strawman. It is a straw man.

It wasn't a strawman (I do not claim anyone argued everything in private is legal), it was reductio as absurdum - taking the privacy argument to its logical limit. If a right to privacy makes abortion legal because it is private, why does this apply only to abortion? Actually, only to a subset of abortion, since "this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation".

You quoted the court saying this is "not unlimited" and about "personal privacy" (distinguished from 'general' privacy?). How does any of this follow from "security against unreasonable search"? Or do I misunderstand, and they derived this right from some other amendment or combination of amendments?

The reasoning, so far as I understand it, is tortured at best, so I'd be grateful if you could clarify the court's logic for me.

[robonerd]

> Or do I misunderstand, and they derived this right from some other amendment or combination of amendments?

Yes, they derived it from the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause.

[car_analogy]

Could you explain how?