"There is a presumption in society that law exists to prevent anarchy." What is this statement based on? I like the next few statements better. Laws exist to protect the rights of people. One kind of law prevents people from taking rights away from other people. (Like laws against theft, murder, etc.) Another type of law prevents the government from taking rights away from people (Like our Bill of Rights).
Anarchy is always short lived and someone or some group of people always assume positions of leadership one way or another naturally. It's not that law prevents anarchy, it's that anarchy, because of human nature, cannot exist long and always gives way to some type of power structure. (As in "Lord of the Flies.")
So what exactly are the natural rights? Where do we get them from, and how do we know what they are? For example, we know that it is correct that no person has the right to take another man's life except in self defense. How do we know that a woman has the right to take the life of her unborn child? There is nothing in natural law that makes this a self-evident right.
The arguments on the two sides of the abortion issue are not equally supported by natural law. The argument by the pro-choice side based on rights is just obfuscation and a failure to acknowledge natural law because of personal desires and opinions. (And in the case of abortion providers it's about the almighty dollar, not rights. But they'll use whatever argument they can to make a buck.)
I've always wondered about the "self-evident" rights in our Constitution. Self evident how? To whom? How do they arrive at their conclusions? Where did they get their final list of rights? How do we know they are from God? What is in natural law that points us to these rights? Can you tell us more about that?