On A Hierarchy of Rights

My good friend Chris has argued for some time that the right to life is a progressive rights issue rather than a Republican/Democrat or Conservative/Liberal issue. Today, I want to add some of my own thoughts to what he's already begun.

* * *

The founders of the United States of America, as influenced by Hobbes and Locke, were certain that human beings were, at the very least, entitled to three thing: their Life, Liberty, and Property (yes, I'm aware of that famous "Pursuit of Happiness" line, but the rest of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Articles of the Confederacy, etc don't really spend much time on happiness so I think it was a flowery line they meant but didn't really care about.).

They didn't always uphold these rights (i.e. slavery), but I believe they made a pretty noble go at it and in the process laid the groundwork for the progressive rights and liberties that we enjoy today.

But these three are not always equal to each other in importance. At least, they aren't equal once you begin to interact with other people. Eventually, when other people enter the mix, there's bound to be some sort of conflict when two people have competing interests and a "right" to their actions or person. So when these rights conflict with each other, we need to have a keen understanding of which rights are the most important to uphold.

I think that the way that they are articulated in the Declaration of Independence and outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America serves as a valid hierarchy.

Thus Life come first, then Liberty, then Property.

Therefore, I have the right to use a gun (property). I have the right to point it in any direction (liberty). But, I don't have the right to pull the trigger when another man is standing in front of me (life).

Therefore, I have the right to use my body sexually (my person=my primary property). But, I cannot use my sexuality in a way that deprives another person of their choice (rape deprives another person of their liberty).

As rights have become more and more progressive, we've decided that even animals have the right to life and liberty. A person cannot attack or abuse an animal without paying fines or serving prison sentences (in extreme cases). In fact, if PETA has their way, we won't be allowed to use animals for food or clothing if they have to give their lives for us to use them.

So we see that the right to life is becoming progressively more and more important in our hierarchy. We value it above all other rights.

Except the lives of those who haven't been born yet.

* * *

NOTE: What comes next is written toward our POLICY on abortion and NOT toward those men and women who are actually deciding whether or not to have an abortion. Please accept this distinction because I am not trying to compare women who are making tough choices to either of the criminal examples that follow.

* * *

We never allow a rapist to argue- "it's my body, I get to choose what to do with it" if he violates another human being's right to liberty. His derogation of another person's rights is unacceptable.

Likewise, we never allow a murderer to argue- "it's my property and liberty at stake here, I can shoot wherever and whenever I want" if he violates another another human being's right to life. His derogation of another person's rights is also unacceptable.

But for some reason, when it comes to the lives of unborn children- we still value the property (mother's body) and liberty (choice) of individuals rather than the life (the right to be born once conceived) of children.

Do dogs really have more of a right to their own life than embryos do?

* * *

Now, before I get a bunch of comments on Women's Rights and how a reversal of Roe V Wade would be a step backward for women...

I completely understand the limited rights that women have had in the duration of the history- especially in conjunction with pregnancy. Please understand that this is not an attempt to "put women in their place" or limit their ability to choose.

This is a discussion on Universal Rights and whether or not life is more important that property and liberty. So, if you're really offended that I'm bringing this up- I'm really sorry that you feel this way but I'd love to hear a sound argument for why an individual would deserve to have their rights to their body and their choices protected over the actual life of another human being.

Also- Please understand that this is not an attack against every single abortion decision. Aborting a pregnancy should never be completely off the table! For there are times when it needs to be available.

For instance:

When the life of a woman is put into danger by the life of an embryo, I believe that she's entitled to make the choice to terminate her pregnancy. This falls into the same category as when the need arises to separate conjoined twins. There is usually a risk of losing one of them in the process, but when two lives are at stake it's a different discussion than when it's just one life at stake.

Or to put it another way, there is a different dilemma in life vs. life rights than when it's property rights or liberty rights vs. life rights.

But for the purpose of this discussion, I believe that life trumps property and liberty every time. Therefore, without bringing religion into the mix at all, I believe that as people who respect Human Rights we need to rethink our policy on abortion.

But that's just me... What do you think?