Here we go, since you cannot seem to be able to read posts very well, I will try to explain it to you one more time. This is the last time I will give such leeway in explaining something that I have already put into extreme detail. Please read this very carefully. I am putting my entire argument [on the United States legal system] in this one single post, so pay close attention. I shall start from scratch.
As you should know, abortion was legalized in the court case Roe vs Wade. Justice Blackmun said that the Constitution does not specifically mention a privacy right, but to quote Justice Blackmun “in varying contexts the Court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right.†To continue his reason for justifying abortion, "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." So the whole reasoning behind the legalization of abortion was not even based on the Constitution.
Now onto the fourteenth amendment which deal with limitations on life, liberty, and property. Though we are guaranteed rights by the government, the government can in fact ‘infringe’ upon these as long as both notice is given and it has an opportunity to be heard. Also, there is the fact that this amendment extended the Bill of rights to both states and Congress, and was not in any way intended to add concrete rights to the Constitution. So you ask, where are the ‘privacy rights’ from?
This right of privacy in fact comes from another court case, Griswold vs Connecticut. The right of privacy comes from the first amendment, third amendment, fourth amendment, and fifth amendment. In a summary, the Griswold vs Connecticut case determined four things main things, there are unmentioned and fundamental rights in the Constitution, if something is not mentioned as a right, then it doesn’t mean that right does not exist, the unmentioned rights can’t be restricted and the fourteenth amendment applies this constraint to states, and that the ‘right of privacy’ was one of the unmentioned rights.
Now, our founding fathers did not have the medical technology to get the knowledge of the biology of unborn babies that we have today, and it seems quite obvious that this perfectly natural stage of human development would be covered because no other stage of human development is covered either. Maybe adolescents shouldn’t have the right to live because they are a strain on their mother’s “liberty interestâ€.
To continue my argument, I will now apply this to Roe vs Wade. Justice Blackmun said that protecting the unalienable right to life did not take priority over an abortion until the third trimester. This opinion by Justice Blackmun is not written in any constitutional document, but instead is an incredibly broad interpretation. On top of that, the Griswold decision did not go anywhere near legalizing abortion.
So let’s look at this, the right to privacy doesn’t cover many areas in a woman’s life, but yet for some magical and unexplainable reason it applies without justification to the right to have an abortion. An argument that is used against abortion is that “criminalizing abortions penalizes only women, since only women become pregnant, and forcing her to carry the child to term without just compensation would be and unconstitutional burden†such as Justice Ginsburg said, but the whole argument is mute because of the fact that this can be argued both ways and in fact never was argued in Roe vs Wade.
The next argument Justice Blackmun used to justify abortion to get rid of the “unwanted childâ€, as he put it, was that he said that women had a “liberty interest†which was protected by the fourteenth amendment. The thing here is that this could also be applied to a born child; so if we legalize abortion on this, why not legalize killing born children too. This argument obviously wouldn’t fly, because the right or privacy in no way overrides the right of somebody to live. But the court found a way to get around this too, they deemed unborn babies to be less than ‘fully human’, but this reminds me for something else in our history, slavery was it?
Then of course there is also the ninth amendment, which was used to justify the outcome of Griswold vs Connecticut. This amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." To be specific, look at the word retain. This means that there are designated rights that are guaranteed by the constitutional text and should in no way ever be used for interpreting so as to deny rights that are not even specified. There is a clear violation of our the right to life here. If you remember or not, the right to life, that comes from a certain document known as the Declaration of Independence. It states that life is one of the unalienable rights that is mentioned in the charter of the United States. It even states that “all men are created equally†meaning that all human beings have the right to live, regardless of whether it is ‘potential’ or ‘full’. It gets worse, Justice Blackmun cited what he called a "fact" that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense" so that he could justify denying rights to unborn babies. And remember that part of history I mentioned early, the thing called slavery?
And then, the part that is conveniently skipped in my other posts, the fourteenth amendment says that the state shall not deprive any person, not just citizens, life, liberty, or property without due process. Now let us reflect over this whole ‘citizenship based’ status. This means that we have the right to take away “life, liberty or property without due process†from a born non-citizen. If the only true argument is that a baby is not a ‘full person’ then why is third trimester abortion illegal?
This is just the argument by using the United States legal system, I can also use what is guarenteed by the United Nations internationally to show how abortion should be illegal.
Remember the process: Read Post --> Read Argument --> Understand Argument --> Attack argument.
which I have quoted all throughout my last posts and you said they are void) 
