A simple assertion that all men are created equal would have been sufficient. By creating these 3 amendments it created division, a separate but equal state, the stole "inalienable" from a race of people and created assigned, freedom contingent upon law. I believe this is a major reason we have racial issues today. And yes, if an assertion was made and an example made of the Southerns who schemed to oppress a legitimate group of Americans, the Constitution would have been strengthened.

Accounted for exactly how? Many "pro-lifers" believe that rape victims should be forced to give birth to the resulting child.

There are always exceptions that need to be accounted for. By and large rape is not the norm.

True. However, if there were other people but they were separated from you, significantly, you would have certain Rights even without interaction (expectations of behavior when and if those interactions did occur)

So pacifists, renters and employees are less "worthy" to vote than those in your favored categories? I agree on the welfare criteria, but pacifist employees who choose not to own land can be just as productive as anyone else.

I read that some group once did an exhaustive research project on the most-cited or quoted references the Founders used in their correspondence and debates during the period leading up to the writing of the Constitution. The single-most quoted reference was the Bible (not the Iroquois), followed (not necessarily in order), by John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu. The Founders understood philosophically that "Rights" may be "inalienable," but at times, people may have to stand up for their Rights, otherwise, those in Power may not recognize those Rights (hence, the Second Amendment, and Jefferson's quote, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of Arms").

More specifically, should they have the "right" to vote?

Please demonstrate the "disastrous consequences" of the 13th Amendment. Would the Constitution be better off without it?

Re: "I contend, and always will, that the time for the mother to be to assert her right was before she lay with a man." Not exactly a choice in the case of rape.

Including the right not to be dropped into an environment with no other human around? :-)

More seriously, if a right is "a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context," then rights would not have any meaning in an environment that lacked a social context. You could not violate the rights of others (and vice versa) if there were no others to interact with.

Which is where we find ourselves now, mired in a morass that is actually taking away the rights and freedoms envisioned by the Founders and worked quite well for about 180 years. Giving special groups 'special rights' above and beyond those conferred by the Constitution and Bill of Rights was a huge mistake even if it seemed like a good idea when weak politicians bowed to the threats of groups like the Black Panthers etc. Martin Luther King Jr. did not ask for rights demanded by law. He asked for respect demanded by human decency. Since then every little group that feels like they are special because they aren't held up as a completely normal part of society goes around asking for laws to proclaim their 'special rights'. It's out of hand and not only needs to stop, it needs to be reversed in many cases. If people have respect within their community that is all you can ask for.If you want to do something, that by the recognized mores of the majority is not considered decent or acceptable behavior, then keep it to yourself or among your 'special' community in private. Your 'special rights' aren't real rights. They're constructs of your imagination.

There are 2 fundamental rights. The right to Self Determination. And the right to Private Property. And these rights only extend so far that they don't countermand those 2 fundamental rights in others. I.E. Healthcare isn't a right because you don't have a claim on the life and livelihood of a doctor.

But how does that extend to children? If rights are incontrovertible, then how can a child have rights over its parents?

Simply put, Children don't have the same rights as Adults, and DO have a claim over their parents for the "Right to Life" (which is a part of the right of Self Determination). Once society has determined that they are an adult, then their claim over their parents ends, and their full rights begin.

Always

Rand made this very clear: rights begin at birth (or for all practical purposes at that time when the fetus can be safely birthed on its own).
Rights do not conflict among humans; but assigning a right to a fetus would create a conflict.
Thus the mother's right is all that is relevant - cannot be compromised.
After birth, the mother/parents have to make decisions for the child as long as that child cannot make such decisions for himself. But that does not deny the child his separate rights; the parents must act to protect his rights.

In primitive cultures there are no questions as to rights. Rights are whatever the state, the religion, or the boss says they are. There is one irrefutable right of an infant at birth, and that is the right to life.In a free society, additional rights are granted as the person matures, until the full amount of rights are bestowed at a certain age, usually 18 or 21. With the granting of those rights come a list of responsibilities, which if not adhered to, can cause those rights to be forfeit. Pretty simple. But as more and more "rights" are granted, the simplicity turns complex and we find ourselves in the muck and mire that even the advocates of those additional rights cannot make sense of.

The technical term is 'reification'.
It describes the belief that just because there is a word there must be an entity to which the word refers.

In this case the prefix 'un' means undo.
When there has not been an action, 'undo' has no meaning.

For a discussion of natural rights, you need to go back further than Locke. The Roman philosopher, Cicero, outlined what he felt were God-given rights, based on inherent abilities. Among the rights he believed indisputable were freedom of speech, freedom of worship (a radical idea at the time, since even the enlightened Romans intermittently declared certain religions unlawful), freedom of assembly, and the right to protect oneself from harm. All of these, and others eventually formulated our Bill of Rights.

We recognize that everyone is born with these natural rights, even before they're able to exercise them. The nurturing period from birth to maturity serves to put the exercise of these rights into social context and hopefully minimize friction with other persons exercising their rights.

The real question is simply: does man qualify for rights because he is Man or because he is subject to someone else's subjective determination about whether or not he is "capable" or "sentient". The latter is a slippery slope rather than an objective viewpoint.

Several cases for examination:
1) a man is in an automobile accident and enters a comatose state. Is that man still a person legally and rationally?
2) a man is born with Down's Syndrome - an impairment in physical and mental ability which will result in his always having to be cared for. Is that man still a person legally and rationally?
3) a woman loses a child and enters a persistent hysterical psychological state. Is that woman still a person legally and rationally?

These are fairly straightforward cases, but it should be mentioned that Hitler argued that the Jews were inferior - not quite human - and therefore did not have to be afforded the same rights as other Germans. Many politicians in the US prior to the US Civil War argued that Negroes were inferior and therefore did not qualify for the same protection under the law. My caution is that when we start allowing people to be the judges of other people, we are asking to repeat the same tragedies of the past.

(PS - I too, thought evw's comment to be rational. I didn't downvote him either.)

Even so:

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin.

"An infant begins to have rights at birth because that is when he is a biologically separate being and begins using his mind to comprehend external reality, literally exercising reason for the first time to integrate his sense perceptions of the world"
I believe there is an argument that the fetus uses his/her mind to comprehend its external reality while in the womb. Its reality being within the womb of course, but the fetus uses its senses of touch and hearing while in the womb. This was an interesting article I came across
https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...

ewv, do you envision at any point in a person's life that their rights can be no longer theirs, i.e. the criminal/terrorist, the sick/elderly that is unable to care for themselves, or lacks the mental capacity to function? Also, what would you say separates the embryo cells in a woman's body to the infant after birth in terms of "rational" being?

The above comment by ewv should not have been downvoted (even though it appears that he downvoted me). His comments on the rights of children and infants are entirely reasonable.

Regarding power of attorney for seniors incapable of making decisions for their own lives, there is an objective list of five functions that, if a senior fails on two of them, then that senior can be deemed incompetent to fully take care of himself/herself. The principles of identifying that is as objective as possible.

It's not about any "number". Either the living being is a rational being or not. Infants don't have most rights because they are incapable of exercising them while in the process of maturing. They do have the fundamental right to life and begin using that as soon as they begin perceiving and mentally integrating the world they are born into. But growth into an adult human is a gradual, continuous process, acquiring increasing capabilities to the point of self reliance.

There are no intrinsic borders within that process, but there are ranges that must be objectively identified and defined for the purpose of law so that everyone knows what they are to some practical precision. The exact cut offs are optional within our context of knowledge, but must be set at something in order to define law and rules (e.g. old enough to own property or drive or decide when to go to be or, later, whether to come home at night). The key is that the process of identification is objective; the principles are neither intrinsic nor subjective.

First, I think that we have to separate the concept of rights from the protection of rights. We are all endowed with inalienable rights but those rights must be protected like anything else that we have. We are unable to match the coercive force of other individuals or groups that would deny us of those rights unless we devote our full attention to this task so we form governments to do this for us. We elect and pay specialists to protect our rights while we do other things. Therefore there are two, related but separate, questions. One, what are our rights and two, what rights are we paying government to protect? Government is a business transaction between citizens and a defined body to act on their behalf. If you delegate personal ethics to the government, you create a state that "knows what is best for you" and may do anything it wants.

In the case of abortion, I would argue that the personal ethical right is the same for the mother and the fetus. The fetus is unable to protect its own rights but it is impossible to delegate the protection of those rights without violating the rights of mothers and their means of avoiding full term pregnancies in any way. In my opinion, we need to concede that we will not ask our government to make the ethical decision and define a "legal" stage for their intervention.

If left up to me, I would set the time for government protection to occur at the cutting of the umbilical cord, while, on a personal ethical basis, still believing that the fetus had full rights at conception.

Altruists would be voting for welfare.