N
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Christopher68
Guest
This is incorrect. The purpose of government is the protection of individual rights.Emma, the purpose of government is to safeguard society and protect the common good.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
If your statement is correct, whose job is it to build roads, staff fire departments, staff the armed forces, and move the mail? I’m not aware that there is an “individual right” to drive from Boston to New York in 3 hours, or to get Aunt Mary’s birthday card to her.This is incorrect. The purpose of government is the protection of individual rights.
C
Christopher68
Guest
The three excellent articles on this link will explain this more eloquently than I can:If your statement is correct, whose job is it to build roads, staff fire departments, staff the armed forces, and move the mail? I’m not aware that there is an “individual right” to drive from Boston to New York in 3 hours, or to get Aunt Mary’s birthday card to her.
aynrand.org/site/PageNavigator/arc_ayn_rand_writings.html
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
You are quite wrong when you say there is no “right” to contraception. The Supreme Court tells us that married people do have that right. See Griswold vs. Connecticut.Emma, the purpose of government is to safeguard society and protect the common good. The basic unit of society it is charged with safeguarding is the family.
Promiscuous sex is not a common good. Promiscuous sex harms society and harms the family. Contraception is the catalyst for this lifestyle of sex outside marriage.
Rampant sexually transmitted diseases. Children born out of wedlock. Cohabititation without marriage. Single motherhood. All of these societal ills come from the mentality that it’s OK to have sex as long as you use contraception.
Legalization of contracetion has destroyed the US in only 40 years. Don’t let it happen in your country. There is no “right” to contraception. The government’s interests should lie elsewhere-- protecting the family unit and her future citizens.
The Catholic Church has made it clear to her members they can not partake of contraception. The Catholic Church has no “right” to force any citizen to follow them.
N
Nate13
Guest
Griswold vs. Connecticut ruled that there was a “right to privacy” not a right to use contraception. They ruled they could not Roe v. Wade’s decision was based on this ruling. A mother was ruled to have the right to kill her child based on the right to privacy. This ruling was a blatant example of judicial activism, where the judiciary over reached its hand. The law, whether you agree with it or not, was constitutional.You are quite wrong when you say there is no “right” to contraception. The Supreme Court tells us that married people do have that right. See Griswold vs. Connecticut.
The Catholic Church has made it clear to her members they can not partake of contraception. The Catholic Church has no “right” to force any citizen to follow them.
Our courts seem to have forgotten the highest law on which they are held accountable too i.e natural law. Our country was founded on the idea that legislators and the courts are subject to natural law, and cannot rightly legislate against it.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Nate,Griswold vs. Connecticut ruled that there was a “right to privacy” not a right to use contraception. They ruled they could not Roe v. Wade’s decision was based on this ruling. A mother was ruled to have the right to kill her child based on the right to privacy. This ruling was a blatant example of judicial activism, where the judiciary over reached its hand. The law, whether you agree with it or not, was constitutional.
Our courts seem to have forgotten the highest law on which they are held accountable too i.e natural law. Our country was founded on the idea that legislators and the courts are subject to natural law, and cannot rightly legislate against it.
Try reading up on this and do some more homework on it. Your idea of natural law is becoming a problem for you.
N
Nate13
Guest
Why don’t you go read what our founders and the men who influenced them said? Here is a taste.Nate,
Try reading up on this and do some more homework on it. Your idea of natural law is becoming a problem for you.
The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges everyone, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another’s pleasure. And being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Everyone as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another"
John Locke
You can complain all you want about whether you agree with this or not, but this is the philosophy our nation was built on.Thus the law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions, must, as well as their own and other men’s actions, be conformable to the law of Nature, i.e, to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good or valid against it."
John Locke
- Status
- Not open for further replies.