Well, first of all, to be more accurate, I challenged you (having neglected to put a question mark at the end of what was otherwise clearly a QUESTION.

Furthermore, you still just seem utterly incapable of the most basic concepts of logic and grammar.

NOWHERE have I suggested that Roe v. Wade lacks intellectual or is "no good" because it doesn't CONTAIN an explanation of why abortion, but not beastiality or adult incest. What I HAVE suggested is that every argument in Roe v. Wade supporting that decision COULD be equally be applied to either beastiality or adult incest, and that those who support Roe v. Wade must either explain why beatiality or adult incest are NOT protected under the "right to privacy" (and using arguments which would not also apply to abortion), OR be consistent and declare their belief that they ARE every bit as much a matter of a "right to privacy" as abortion.

If YOU believe the reasoning in Roe v. Wade is defensible, then I suggest you defend it. Let me make this a little more systematic and easier for you to do:

1. Do you believe Roe v. Wade is intellectually defensible as a reasonable interpretation of the United States Constitution?

2. Based on the arguments presented in Roe v. Wade, what, if anything in that opinion justifies abortion being a constitutional right under the right to "privacy", that would not be an equally valid argument for adult incest or beastiality being a right as well for the exact same reason?

3. Do you believe it would be a reasonable interpretation of the constitution to conclude that it contains a right to beastiality or adult incest?

4. If your answer to #3 is no, and you are unable to come up with an answer for #2, how could you defend answering "yes" (if you did) to #1?

Now on a related, but slightly broader principal:

5. What do you think should constrain a judge in terms of how they "interpret" a law? Do you agree or disagree with the following:

5a: Since the laws legitimacy in a representative republic comes only from the power of the people, a law should be read and interpreted as it was generally understood by those who gave it legitimacy at the time it was written

5b: Any basic principle or rational applied to the law, must be applied constitently. This doesn't mean that there cannot be "excpetions" to general rules or principles, but even those exceptions must be based in their own rule or principle that themselves must be equally applied. For example. If you make a general rule that nobody may play games, and the court "interprets" that rule to exclude tennis because it uses a ball, then they must ALSO apply that rational consistently and find that ANY game that uses a ball. If they say tennis yes, soccer no, they must articulate a basic rule or principle that explains that distinction, and that explanation must also be applied consistently.

5c. When the reasoning justifying an interpretation would yeild pattently absurd results if applied consistently, it is not a reasonable interpretation.

5d. An interpretation which contradicts basic and firmly established societal values is not reasonable unless there is no other reasonable interpretation of the text.

5e. When an interpretation would result in what has been consistently understood to be a power of the people or the state, the court should not give a law such an interpretation unless the text is unambiguous and clear in stating that such power is affirmatively revoked.

5f. Courts are only legitimately empowered to expound upon the meaning of the law, they have no legitimate power to create or to change the meaning.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane