"However, I do assert that inalienable rights are just that; they are neither granted nor forfeited by government decree...
Any restrictions, or sanctions of any sort, are directed at the conduct of individuals rather than their right to ‘be’ or ‘have inalienable rights’ ..."
So, it's not the right that is limited, but one's conduct in exercising such right? Aren't you splitting hairs?
BTW, as to the first part - "neither granted nor forfeited by government decree" - you are correct in a sense, but not for the reason you appear to think. According to natural law theory, which is what our "inalienable rights" are based on, these are the rights we all hold in a "state of nature" where, BTW, there is also no scarcity of resources, no crowding, no need for competition for land, food or water, and nothing else to compete over, covet or envy.
Man forms society, and subsequently government, for the very reason that this idealistic state of nature is purely hypothetical. It doesn't exist, and perhaps never did, in the real world. Resources ARE scarce. People DO compete for them, sometimes without regard for the natural rights of others. But the means to survival IS a natural right, regardless of whether someone else is competing for those means such that one's right conflicts with someone else's.
Man forms society in order to protect, as much as possible, his natural rights by mutually agreeing to abide by a code of conduct that places limits on, in particular, our natural liberty. And because it is efficient to do so, societies form governments to administer society - to enforce that code and judge those who violate it (the latter being, in nature, the right only of the person wronged).
So, again, whether you want to say it is the right or the conduct that is limited, it amounts to the same thing and is the result of man's coming together and forming society and government, not because government does it "by decree". That is, legitimate government doesn't place limitations on rights (or take them away as punishment or for the public benefit) arbitrarily or of its own accord, but rather for the governed by the consent of the governed.
In any case, it is still possible for both a mother-to-be AND an unborn child to have rights, regardless of whether those rights might be at odds. It is a red herring to say the latter can not possibly have rights simply because they might be at odds with the mother's. It is still up to society to decide when one becomes a person with rights that society will act to protect.
After all, as I said above, by natural law only the wronged have any right to seek redress for those wrongs - it is by membership in society that one gets the protection of that society.
Even if we believe the rights to be divinely endowed, we can't possibly KNOW God's mind - i.e. when He deems them a person. We can only decide the point where we, as society, can or will act to protect those rights. If we don't believe, then what the hell are we arguing about? Society decides anyway.
And either way, society can also weigh the situation at hand and decide whether acting to protect the rights of the unborn also unduly infringes the rights of the mother. She has a right to life as well, so society should not be able to force her to forfeit it for another (or prevent her from forfeiting it voluntarily, either). OTOH, she does not have an inalienable right to not be inconvenienced by having to refrain from actions that would endanger the life of the unborn or by having (absent abnormal risks) to give birth only to enable the unwanted child to survive to be adopted. Convenience is not a right. Life is. And if not being inconvenienced is implied within liberty, I'd say the means to survival outweighs it as a right.
This approach, BTW, would allow for such societal solutions as, let's say, allowing abortions only during some early period of pregnancy (however short) or later if the life or health of the mother are in real jeopardy. Some who claim to know God's mind say that's not good enough - that the rights of the unborn ALWAYS outweigh those of the mother. And some who want maximum individual liberty without regard to the rights of the unborn simply define away those rights. I say thank God both of them are in the minority so the rest of us can try to settle on something workable that we can live with and can stop arguing about it at least for a while. |
