“Unborn children are legally different from other children. Unborn children are not counted in the census, they do not require passports and they cannot collect welfare.”
Unborn children can also inherit property, and yes, they can collect welfare. It’s the WIC program, and a woman has to have a child to collect, so the child is part of the package. If she has other children, fine, but if she doesn’t, she’s still eligible on the basis of the existing unborn child. And whatever she eats, her baby benefits from. And the government also provides benefits that will help a pregnant mother obtain housing. This also shelters both of them.
Welfare is wrong to begin with, but that doesn’t mean that the baby has been prevented from receiving its benefits.
What you are talking about here are statutory rights, not unalienable rights. Yes, states have a right to define statutory rights. But they have a duty to enforce unalienable rights. They don’t have a right to deny unalienable rights to any human being. That was what was decided in the fight over slavery. The state has a duty to protect unalienable rights by prosecuting anyone who violates unalienable rights. There’s no unalienable right for a person to be protected against a search of his portion of the house by another family member. There is an unalienable right to be secure in his person and papers, etc. As long as a parent just searches the room as part of his enforcement of parental discipline, he is violating no one’s unalienable rights. But a state that stands by while th parent hires someone to kill his child is acting illegally.
Something most people are forgetting is that a pregnant mother and her child are a dyad. They’re NOT enemies. In fact, you can’t even do an abortion on a woman without harming her body, because our bodies are designed to protect our children. When we stop making mothers and their unborn children into mortal enemies, both of them will be better off. We have no right to drive a wedge between them. Seen in this light, abortion is also a violation of the mother’s rights, and her consent to be violated doesn’t change that fact. As I pointed out, the mere fact that a woman acquiesces to a violation by a rapist doesn’t mean we argue rape should be legal if she acquiesces. And the mere fact that a woman acquiesces to medical rape doesn’t mean medical rape should be legal, either.
That may be true, but that does not give the Federal Government the authority to ban abortion. There are all kinds of heinous crimes from murder to rape that violate no federal law. That's because the Federal Government does not have that authority.
There’s no unalienable right for a person to be protected against a search of his portion of the house by another family member.
Well in fact, it does not violate the Constitution for ANY individual who is not a state agent to search your house. It could violate half a dozen local laws, but not the Constitution.