Rights and Responsibilities.  Another Greg view.  Both are important and it is obvious, since without responsibilities rights become meaningless, that responsibilities need to be considered more pressing than rights.  But we, at least in the West, go about this backwards, screaming for rights but ignoring the responsibilities.  Many think they have a right to take from others, to take what those who work earn even though they have no interest in working.  They claim to have no responsibility to produce anything of value to earn their home and food.  This is wrong.  When you are legally allowed to steal from others, those others are in a state of slavery, and as we all know that is wrong.  OK, calm down!  I am not talking about those who are so aged, or infirm, or chronically ill, or who have conditions such that they cannot work.  For those, society should provide enough comfort to live, with a few basic enjoyments to make life at least somewhat pleasurable.  But those who choose to not work should not be given lifelong handouts from other people's goods.  I include in these those who choose to do drugs, including abusing alcohol, those who choose to play the "entitlement" game known as welfare, those who choose to go from job to job only working long enough for unemployment.  Note that those who are caught between jobs, meaning that they are without work for a while through no fault of their own, are not included in this list of those who should not be helped by the government.

Other rights that should not really exist without a strong dose of responsibility include privacy.  Hold on, keep the indignation in check for a moment and let me bound this.  Privacy in the home should be absolute as long as there are no people involved who are either to young or not mature enough to not avoid being involved, and as long as anyone is not coerced or forced into participating, and as long as no illegal acts are being planned or committed against parties outside of the home.  OK, so we have:  age of consent, no disabling handicap, ability to option out, and nothing that will take away the rights of someone else.  Fair enough?  Let us define home not only where you live, but also in legal temporary living arrangements and where privacy should be expected (hotels, staying with friends, public restrooms).  Where you should have no expectation of privacy is pretty much everyplace else.  In your car?  No way.  You have a responsibility to drive safely, you do not have a right to privacy as you zip through that red light endangering those whose turn it is to move.  So if there is a traffic camera there, the state should have the right to get a picture of your smiling face as you force better drivers to slam on their brakes, instead of just taking a picture of your license plate.  Why I care about this?  Because of how many times I see people go through red, and hearing about how in jurisdictions' with red light cameras the registered owner can send a signed letter to the police stating that they were not driving to avoid the fine.  Ridiculous!  Have read where some brag about lying to avoid paying.  Either allow picture ID to prove who was driving, or the owner pays the fine and he/she can take it up with the real driver about how the cost is to be made up.

Having kids?  Sorry but no.  Violent criminals, sexual predators, those who are insane who killed kids, drug addicts, those who have shown that they are incapable of raising a child without criminal neglect, and those who collect welfare should not have kids.  For the criminals in this group, the ban should be permanent.  For the others, for as long as the condition lasts.  The reason is simple:  If we are to believe in evolution, than we must believe that traits are passed through the generations.  Not saying that a child will always carry on the parent's violent or lazy ways but why would you want to have a child at risk in a violent offender's home, and why would you want to risk that the trait is passed down so violence can be continued through the years?  Still not convinced?  Why do we, as a society, need to keep producing damaged kids when there are so many people around to continue populating the earth who do not have these negative traits and will not inflict negative upbringing on children, adding the environmental component for future troubles to the genetic component from the parents?  Of course the welfare case deserves special mention, and the reason is simple:  If you cannot take care of yourself without leeching off the work of others, why should you be allowed to produce offspring who you have an almost impossible chance of bringing up to be a good much less productive citizens?  Get your stuff together, go back to school, this time with the intent to learn something useful instead of wasting the taxes spent on providing public schooling, and get and keep a job.  Or if you can't learn, get out into the real world and take an illegal immigrants job picking produce so you can contribute something to the nation who has so unwisely offered you a free ride using other people's labor. 

So, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are what we have as rights, with the important understanding that our enjoyment of these rights stop where those same rigths are being enjoyed by others.