Who, or What, Grants Us Our Rights?

Tech Central Station ^ | October 21, 2004 | James K. Glassman

[robertpaulsen]

I claim that a woman's right to control her fetus' life can be lawfully ceded to the State from the moment of conception. I am, however, willing to make an exception for the physical safety of the mother.

A woman's right to control her life is ceded to the state even without conception when it comes to suicide or prostitution, so don't get your nose out of joint when it comes to a life she's carrying.

And since the "right" to f^&% perfect strangers in exchange for cash is not an inalienable right, the state may regulate that activity without individual due process.

"This is 'taking away' rights, not regulating them."

The USSC has ruled that "regulating" includes banning.

[tpaine]

Governments may say that the right to life is not protected until, say, age 3?

No, they can't 'say' that.
Governments are not granted the power to define when the personal rights of a developing baby begin to trump the rights of its mother. -- Under American law, only a jury can decide if such an abortion is murder. No one else.

I claim that a woman's right to control her fetus' life can be lawfully ceded to the State from the moment of conception.

You claim that Legislators can lawfully "cede" a womans rights? -- Can you point out that power in our Constitution?

I am, however, willing to make an exception for the physical safety of the mother.

Big of you.

A woman's right to control her life is ceded to the state even without conception when it comes to suicide or prostitution, so don't get your nose out of joint when it comes to a life she's carrying.

Prostitution is Constitutionally legal in the USA, as is proved by Nevada State law, -- although some states try to prohibit it by over-regulation.
Suicide has never been successfully prosecuted in any State, making your silly comment about it moot.

And since the "right" to f^&% perfect strangers in exchange for cash is not an inalienable right, the state may regulate that activity without individual due process.

Not true, as most such 'regulating' denies due process.
To take away a woman's liberty to exchange sex for favors or cash, the State would have to give her a trial by jury. The jury could decide guilt under the law as written. Most such laws are unconstitutionally written, but the defense cannot so argue. Thus, 'due process' becomes a joke.
-- This is 'taking away' rights, not regulating them.

The USSC has ruled that "regulating" includes banning.

You claim they have. -- I claim that they would like to give themselves this 'power to prohibit', but the 18th Amendment established that prohibition can only be done by Amendment, and, -- that the Constitutionality of such amendments is in itself questionable as being repugnant to our basic principles of liberty.