The government building roads is unconstitutional. Do you want tyrannical roads running your country?

A company will not build a road to a small community if the return on equity doesn't justify the enormous infrastructural and maintenance costs involved.

Even in the case of municipalities, roads who rarely be built where they're needed because of the difficulties inherent in getting individuals to sell their property. Roads in cities would inherently be monopolies and presumably be priced accordingly.

Finally, it's difficult to raise that sort of capital today (and it would have been near impossible a century ago). Not all communities would be linked together, retarding economic growth, and barriers to entry (covered earlier) would make roads expensive to travel on.

Communities could join together and pay for roads themselves, but then we're right back at government building and maintaining them.

Exactly, it's growing in your house so you can expel it when you want. That baby never signed a contract to rent her uterus.

The government has a compelling national interest.

I agree, nice to see you can make a difference between a 2 week foetus and a baby about to born

I think the abortion deadline is pretty accurate, outlawing abortion when the fetus develops an EMP. If it's heart doesn't work, why should we call it alive?

The whole "it's her body" argument that pro-choice people use I think isn't convincing in the first place, but not for this reason. (I've already outlined why in a previous thread I made where I considered the example of conjoined twins)

Seems like an arbitrary place to draw the line of where a woman's body ends, though. What makes the fetus not part of her body?

The supreme court disagrees.



Yeah, I agree with the current laws. Before it developes a consciousness it is an object and has no moral standing.

It does not share the same DNA, it exists outside of her internal environment.