Your fundamental (natural) right to drink alcohol may be regulated -- it can be taken away from (ie., not protected) certain groups of individuals by the state without individual due process, as long as it is applied equally and there is a compelling state interest.
The government cannot do that with (u)inalienable rights.
You favor absolute State prohibitions on many substances, objects, & behaviors. This is 'taking away' rights, not regulating them.
All of our rights are inalienable.
Governments have no granted powers to prohibit, just to reasonably regulate.
Governments may reasonably regulate our right to life?
Obviously, they cannot, not reasonably.
Governments may say that the right to life is not protected until, say, age 3?
No, they can't 'say' that. Governments are not granted the power to define when the personal rights of a developing baby begin to trump the rights of its mother. -- Under American law, a jury can decide if such an abortion is murder. No one else.
This is where you get into trouble with your "big basket" theory.
I have no problem with conforming to our Constitutional "big basket". -- You do.
And now we'll have to put up with 20 or 30 of your follow-on posts where you try to weasel out of it. Weasel away. I'm done.
You've always been 'done' paulsen. Your anti-constitutional political stance has become an FR joke.
A woman's right to control her life is ceded to the state even without conception when it comes to suicide or prostitution, so don't get your nose out of joint when it comes to a life she's carrying.
And since the "right" to f^&% perfect strangers in exchange for cash is not an inalienable right, the state may regulate that activity without individual due process.
"This is 'taking away' rights, not regulating them."
The USSC has ruled that "regulating" includes banning.