[radicalamericannationalist]

"This is the basis for many laws allowing the control of minors by their parents."

Untrue. An independent child (independently wealthy via trust, child acting, etc) is still controlled by his parents. Children are in the control of their guardians because they do not come out fully formed and need to be socialized. Again, your line of reasoning would allow parents to dispose of their dependent children.

"Who says the right to life supersedes the right to be secure in one's person?"

Well, here's one source: "WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

The Founders understood that the right to life was first and foremost amongst the rights that government was instituted to protect. The type of nations that thought inconvenient lives had no rights were blood drenched tyrannies that our forefathers died to defeat.

[H.Akston]

"Give me liberty or give me death"

Children are routinely deprived of liberty, forced to go to school, for example, and liberty is more important than life, as Patrick Henry observed.

The justification for this is their dependence.

"Again, your line of reasoning would allow parents to dispose of their dependent children."

Rubbish. As I said, governmentally protectable life begins when that life can sustain itself without violating the security of another's person. That does not allow parents to "dispose of their dependent children." I have achieved a balance with my line of reasoning, between life and 4th Amendment liberty - both of these are unalienable rights.

Explain why your line of reasoning does not force a woman to endure the violation of the security of her person by a rapist's spawn.