DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
ORIGINAL: tamaka
So under the 'Right to Life' perhaps the government should provide healthcare to those with chronic illness.
Absolutely. Makes sense to me.
except this has been explained to you before, partially by the contrast between "negative" rights and "positive" rights. our country was founded with the former at its core---that is, the things the government CANNOT do to you. that is in this case, since we have a right to life the government cannot just willy nilly take it, and further, governments are established so that other people cannot just willy nilly take it either.
it simply does not follow from having a right to life, that governments exist to provide for people in the way the left desires.
Then, the government should not be able to interfere in a woman's right to abort her child.
We would agree the Federal government should not be able to interfere with a woman's decision to abort her child. I'd even go one step further and say that the Federal government has no authority to even speak about a woman's decision to abort her child, one way or the other. No authority was granted it in the US Constitution, afterall.
If a State's charter grants the authority to determine if a woman is allowed to abort, or when a woman is allowed to abort, then that State can interfere, if it and it's citizens so choose.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Fourth of July 2017 - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread