I don’t want to suppose that I am in agreement with solon, as he may not see it that way. However, I do assert that inalienable rights are just that; they are neither granted nor forfeited by government decree. Although, as in our case, the government may decide to recognize the nature of human existence and base its laws on that.
Any restrictions, or sanctions of any sort, are directed at the conduct of individuals rather than their right to ‘be’ or ‘have inalienable rights’ which means the same thing. Whenever an individual takes it upon themselves to violate the law of the land they have already chosen for themselves the condition of their being, it is only incumbent on the government to judge to the best of its ability whether or not the individual has made such a choice based on the evidence of that individual’s conduct.
Inalienable rights are not in conflict, the aspirations and associated conduct of individuals wishing to assert themselves may be. A mother and child may have conflict over their desires and dependencies, awarding of resources and life management, but not over their individual right to be (a human being with inalienable rights). This doesn’t change whether the child is three years or one second old. I fail to see how the argument has been differentiated for the unborn, so far, but am still interested in where you all go with it. The question is only whether or not the unborn child can legitimately be recognized as a human being by the government. If so, the government is obligated to recognize it’s inalienable rights. |
