On 10/19/2011 3:59 PM, Nova wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:52:05 -0600, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 10/19/2011 9:23 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/18/2011 5:31 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:40:33 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents could
well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions
in matters of procreation?

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not
procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for
individuals that they may not procreate.

Please provide an example.

See:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0183.htm

That deals with castration for (obviously male) convicted sex offenders.
It does not remotely suggest that government is generally empowered to
regulate a person's right to make decisions regarding procreation.
Government can in proper circumstances limit a person's free speech, but
free speech is nevertheless a fundamental right. Same with the right to
assemble, to own property, etc. In the criminal law context, people
undoubtedly have a right to life and a right to liberty, but the
government can in a proper case deprive a convicted felon of liberty and
even life.
In legal terms, if a person has a fundamental right, government can
infringe on that right if it can show a compelling interest, and that
the means it chooses are narrowly tailored to protect that interest.
Therefore, merely showing that government can restrict a right in narrow
circumstances does not disprove the right exists.

I rephrase my question: Do you seriously think that there is no
fundamental right to make decisions regarding procreation?