Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: allmendream; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; mlizzy; Coleus; narses; ...
Odd only if you think an abortion is a natural right.

Huh? You said that abortion should be returned to the states. That means that each state would get to decide whether or not to kill babies and that IS NOT protecting natural rights.

I think people have a natural right to be free from unreasonable government interference, in other words, that there needs to be a compelling government interest in regulation of something, that the regulation needs to be under an enumerated power, and that the regulation be consistent with a limited government that recognizes the natural rights of man.

Oh? Do you consider protecting innocent life to be "unreasonable government interference"? Because I certainly HAVE heard libertarians advance that argument before.

If you think that a Government that outlaws contraception is consistent with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man, just say so.

I have yet to see where it has been established that man has a natural right to contraception.

131 posted on 10/25/2010 2:04:40 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]


bookmark


132 posted on 10/25/2010 2:12:48 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee
No, I do not, and your attempt to “mind-read” me into a libertarian is idiotic.

Man need not have a natural right to contraception for the Government outlawing of contraception to be an abridgment of natural rights and inconsistent with a Government of limited and enumerated powers.

But I find it amusing that amid the HUE and CRY about me daring to suggest that anyone here was FOR laws against contraception - we find those who argue against the decisions that struck down laws against contraception - and you arguing that such a law would not be an abridgment of our natural rights.

But how DARE I suggest that you might actually be for laws against contraception! Just because you find them compatible with recognition of our natural rights, and others argue with appeal to consequences about how the decisions to strike down such laws were wrong!

Where could I possibly come up with such an outlandish idea?

Amusing!!!!

Good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in their bedroom is “evil” and subject to Government regulation! If you can make that argument while simultaneously arguing for a limited Government of enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man I would be REALLY impressed.

133 posted on 10/25/2010 2:13:09 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson