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.
If Roe v Wade were overturned, the issue would be up to the States.
Because it is completely incompatible with this statement you made in post #103:
I don't believe the State has any authority to abridge amend or fail to recognize the natural rights of man. That which is forbidden to the Federal Government in recognition of our natural rights, is similarly forbidden to the State Government.
Why is it that on the one hand you affirm that the states do not have the authority to take away natural rights, but on the other hand you suggest that abortion be returned to the states?
Do YOU think that each state should get to decide if abortion is legal within the state? YES or NO.