Do we really have an Inalienable Right to Life?

[aion]

I have engaged more than a few right-wingnuts to know that this is an important issue for them. Is there anything in the actual US Constitution, or subsequent laws, which guarantees your right to life? Sure, it is in the declaration of Independence. But that document seems to float in legal limbo from time to time.

[melody]

1. Unalienable Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

"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."

The problem is the freepers insist they alone know what "life" means and that restricting the clear rights of a living person is preferable to not knowing when "life" begins.

[madeline_con]

2. The Bill of Rights, (1st ten amendments of Constitution) states...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

Isn't being secure in one's person being alive?

[Deja Q]

3. No. Not in the slightest. Here's why, and you fundie shits had better duck

Not when food, water, and shelter cost as much as they do - or, in fact, cost a damn thing at all.

God created ALL THINGS. How dare God's creation charge for it?

Indeed, from "Signs":

Now, hey you Mister! can't you read, you got to have a shirt and tie to get a seat. You can't even watch, no you can't eat, you ain't suppose to be...

[aion]

4. You better be quiet

...before they slap you with a 'fresh air' tax. :P

Their trees growing on their land providing your oxygen. I can almost formulate the argument... ;)

If they go that far, perhaps they will permit your demands for a rebate -- based on your exhales.

[Guaranteed]

9. It does kind of seem like it should lead to that conclusion.

I think that, for the most part, we do try to uphold that, though- that everyone has a right to food, freedom, clothing, etc.

Look at how much of a shame it puts on our nation when disasters like Katrina happen and the suffering our citizens are undergoing becomes so evident.

[whistle]

5. Only if we protect that right from despots like Bush, neo-conservatives

...religious fundamentalists, the shadow government of Dominionists and who knows what other low life un-American zealots out there who are attempting to deprive American citizens of our rights.

[WePurrsevere]

6. It is very likely, due to the way it was worded in the Dec of Indep...

that the right to "life" (as well as libery and the pursuit of happiness) was considered a "given"... as basic and natural ("Creator given") a "right" as our "right" to breath, have bodily functions, etc.

If a "right" is "Creator given" (unalienable) then the forefather and framers of the Bill of Rights and Constitution may not have felt they needed to state the obvious.

As Melody pointed out however the big issue with Freepers is the point at which "life" begins which directly contradicts their belief that there should be no "right to die with dignity", that there should be capital punishment and that it is acceptable to send our LIVING soldiers over to kill and be killed by other LIVING human beings whether "guilty" or not. This of course makes them hypocritical not to mention that the later part goes directly against what Jesus taught about "love", turning the other check, etc.

[aion]

7. That spin pivots around the 'due process of law'

And we all know how whimsical that can be, depending on the times.

How long can it be before we see chain gangs back in vogue?

[CTyankee]

8. And we should also mention

that our Constitution gives no right to "unborn" citizens. It does, however, discuss citizens "born" in the United States (in the section of prerequisites to become President and in either the 13th or 14th amendment).

[aion]

14. It also mentions something about the VP and P being from the same state

But if you're rich enough, and have homes enough, I suppose you can work your way around that.

[Guaranteed]

10. Yes, those three are unalienable. What that means is that they are

retained without being granted by any government entity. IOW, they don't need to be in the Constitution in order to exist, and, besides, notice of their claim has already been given through the Declaration of Independence, which is most definitely a legal document.

However, if the freepers are trying to make an anti-abortion argument with that, it won't work. The strongest pro-choice argument is that it is a part of a woman's autonomy (liberty) to make choices about what she is going to do with her uterus. A fetus can't go in there and lay claim to it. Her well-established rights over her reproductive organs trump any rights that MIGHT be retained by the fetus.

[Lexingtonian]

11. Not really

We are guaranteed the treatment due full citizenship via the 14th Amendment. But in the eyes of the Right the 14th Amendment cannot be concede to exist, so they have to confabulate rights out of other bits of recorded doctrine. You don't have an absolute right to life, under the Constitution; you have a conditional one.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Guaranteed]

13. They're unalienable. They're not granted by any government

entity. It's not up to someone else to give you these rights.

A person lays claim to them, and they have these rights.

[sam sarrha]

12. means you cant transfer "ownership" to another.. as in slavery

[aion]

15. Perhaps not ownership

But what about 'optional' indentured servitude?