Reproductive Rights

[Darth Rotor]

Another important point. When I'm discussing rights, I'm talking about what rights there should be, rather than what rights our legal system actually acknowledges.
Legally, we do have the right to make any people we are physically able to. But morally, I do not believe human beings have (or if you prefer, should have) any such right.

You and I will not agree on this.

I find greater rationality in the position that (consistent with the general principles of the US Constitution, as outlined in Amendments IX and X) rights are reserved by the people, en toto, except as they agree or consent to modify, restrict, or forfeit to the state, or society. In short, the default position is pure liberty (and if you want to call that anarchy, fine) modified to X amount of order and consensuallyl agreed curtailment or limitation of rights.

For example, the most commonly agreed norm that I can think of in the global sense is the taboo against killing within the tribe/society/state. A societal agreement has made (universally?) that the general case of taking another's life is not a right, or it is a right with significant limitation (example: self defense only, otherwise forfeited.)

In reality, you only preserve those rights you defend. I see no reason not to defend the right to reproduce. I need to be given a better argument than you have provided to agree to waiving a part of that right.

Avalon, I suggest the normative change, even if not achieving the 80% solution, would be a better mode to approach whatever problem you perceive in need of remedy than a draconian default position of abrogating rights to be "earned" back from the state. I'd reserve that sort of "re earn" motif to those who have already broken faith with the society/tribe/state by actual behavior, felonious, rather than potential to screw up.

You should not by default assume that the citizen is a criminal, nor an incompetent, regardless of the fact that some are.

DR