Nothing in comparison to the murder of a human being. And that person could be given up for adoption.
If a stranger did that to you, it would be kidnapping, enslavement, battery and theft. The mother's rights in this regard are not so much used toilet paper, and
A mother's child is no stranger. At any rate she is the one who chose to conceive a child. I mean I'm pro-choice really - you can have the choice to conceive the child or not. But you do not have the right to commit homocide except in self-defense.
there is not such thing as "inalienable right to life", any more than there is such a thing as "inalienable right to life and liberty"
Interesting attitude for a "conservative".
The right to life of a blob of goo that might someday qualify as a citizen,
That's just disgusting. That "blob of goo" is a human being. How does one develop such a callous lack of respect for human life???
does not outweigh the assault and enslavement of an existing citizen with full rights. The law exists to serve the existing citizens who are willing participants in it's social contract. It is both dangerous and stupid to extend those rights, willy-nilly, to anything else.
This is not anything else - this is HUMAN LIFE we are talking about. The assault and enslavement of an existing citizen? What about the assault and murder of killing a baby in it's mother's womb?
Very well. Please explain how an absolute right to life can co-exist with an absolute right to liberty and happiness. My conservative principals notwithstanding, references to the Declarations (or anyone's) ideas about absolute rights are not bulldozer arguments. Taken literally as such, they are hogwash. In the real world, this has to mean that enumerated rights are really important, not trumps. That's why we have Supreme Courts adjudicate the law. In the real world, differing ligitimate rights can conflict.