[dubyajames]

Cultural recognition is not an adequate basis for rights. Right either exist as a proper claim or they don't. We may disagree as to the nature of rights - I do believe in God-given rights that each human being intrinsically has - but rights cannot be subject to cultural consensus or majority vote, or they do not exist as rights in any meaningful sense.

[headsonpikes]

Fascinating post; interesting thread.

I notice the resident polecats showed up to spray their scent on the proceedings.

Keep up the good fight!

[jackbob]

You and I recognizing some right, and thereby claiming it, does not make it a legal right. If the right we claim is not recognizable to the culture, then the right can not exist in any meaningful legal way within any civilized society. Our society does not recognize a fetus as a full human being. It definitely does not recognize it as an individual.

I'll agree that their is a minority that recognize it as a full individual human being, but they are very small in number even within the anti-abortion movement.

For example. You are not going to find very many anti-abortionists willing to deny a dying mother to an abortion, if it and additional medical treatment would statisticly prolong her life for 12 to 18 months. This is true, even where the fetus is statisticly more viable.

Many other anti-abortionists grant exceptions for rape and incest. In short, our culture over all, with a large exception, does not recognize a fetus as a full humanbeing, and definitely not an individual holding individual rights.

While rights may come out of nature, their are no rights in nature. Legal rights are the product of our culture.