Just using your argument: So lets say today the government gets involved to prevent murder of the inconvenient. Now, government is involved. 20 years from now, due to precedent, the government is involved in those decisions, but now takes the other side. How would you respond?
Now, government is involved. 20 years from now, due to precedent, the government is involved in those decisions, but now takes the other side. How would you respond?
>>
Let's let a far smarter man than you answer that:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."
Ohhh I just had to answer this before I left to watch TV!
Guess what? Government has actually been involved at least since the 1700's to prevent the murder of the innocent inconvenients here in the US! And in truth, for hundreds of years most governments have maintained this position.
Governments have no business in the killing of innocent inconvenients.
"Funny how people claim not to want the government involved, but they supported the government ordering the murder of an innocent woman. They just don't support the government performing its most sacred duty; defending the lives of the citizens"