[NittanyLion]

It most certainly does change based on the whim of the majority in the Supreme Court.

Rights don't change based on time or circumstance. Even if governments forbid the exercise of a right, that doesn't mean it isn't a right even so.

Your argument would have us believe the invasion of Iraq was not a humanitarian gesture, because the government had decided for its people what rights they had (virtually none). Therefore, they were not entitled to any other rights.

It's absurd, but sadly very representative of your confused thinking.

[counterpunch]

Rights don't change based on time or circumstance. Even if governments forbid the exercise of a right, that doesn't mean it isn't a right even so.

That's a completely rhetorical argument.
Lets just put it this way - the "right to life" has been indefinately suspended from excercise by the government.

Your problem is you are mixing up political philosophy, legal reality, and religious ideology into one big mush.

You argue against the legal facts I present with broad political philosophy, then when I meet you on that plane, you argue against me with narrow religious ideology.

Then when all else fails you settle on empty rhetoric and ad hominem attack.