If so, how much privacy?
If you allow one group of people to determine just how much privacy a person has a right too, do you think they will limit their intrusiveness or do you think it would grow by-leaps-and-bounds every year?
The history of all world gov'ts shows that gov't only grows.
It's the old mafia protection schema "....if you guys don't want kids to throw rocks through your window you need to hire us to guarantee it"
Nature does not protect fetuses nor parents -- that's a free-society.
Zero-Protectionism -- 100% Possibility of Failure
That's called "pure competition"
There's no place for Gov't in a free-society. Now during a transition that would be one thing, but even then that kind of Gov't must have a diminishing (self-diminishing) schema built into it -- an auto-immune disease if you will. It must cannibalize itself, reduce in size year-to-year as people are handed back the responsbility of "self-rule"
Self-Rule and Gov't are mutually exclusive.
The thing folks like you don't understand is that in a Free-Society there is PROFOUND value in women and their "product"
In a free-society profit bursts are dependent on entrepreneurial or R&D start-ups / innovation (respectively).
This means there needs to be as many people born as possible because only 1 in 10,000 are born entrepreneurs (probably less).
People will offer women money to "keep" their babies -- Orphanages will be wildly successful and innovation will be the basis of education.
But if you do not "trust this" then you will vote and lobby (grow gov't) and you will have more of what you don't want.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: