How many other "classes" throughout history have been systematically denied their most basic rights and murdered using the same sophistry? Do feel free to name another "circumstance" in which one human may kill another for any or no reason without judicial review or legal consequence. Surely, there must be more than one circumstance where one individual may kill another for reasons as trivial as "circumstance". If not, then it is you who is making an argument that arises from dogma. Dogma being defined as A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum. If you can offer up some credible evidence to support your argument, perhaps you can prove that it doesn't arise from dogma.
Human rights are not new. Human rights are as old as humanity. Respecting and protecting human rights may be a concept that is only a few hundred years old, but rights and the protection of rights are two different things.
The will of one individual stops being personal and private the moment that will encroaches on the rights of another. That line of thinkinking is a logical fallacy in that it begs the question and simply assumes that the will of the mother does not encroach on another human being.
I am still waiting for you to name another such "circumstance" in which one individual may kill another with no judicial review and no legal consequence for any, or no reason.
Well of course not killing an innocent individual is preferable to killing an innocent individual. BUT!! That is where your argument breaks down in both principle and practice. The only valid reason for one individual to kill another is self defense.
...yes well... Is that code for saying that you can indeed find no argument that suggests anything other than an argument to protect human rights, but will dogmatically hold to your original accusation anyway?
Except, of course, for the fact that no laws currently stand. A court case currently stands and a court case that was decided on a flawed and obviously incorrect assumption. A court case in which the justices admitted that they were making a decision in a state of uncertainty that violated both their ethical and judicial responsibilities to never decide a case in a state of uncertainty when great harm could result.
Do you believe that "eloquence" equates to right? If you can't rationally defend a position, no amount of eloquence will make the decision a good one.
No actual argument huh? Not to worry, a great many have come before you who also, in the end, had no actual argument in defense of that position. The fact of human rights is not a personal opinion. It is enshrined in our founding documents and the constitution. Your position is clearly one of opinion and opinion that is entirely unsupportable.
I suppose I can vaguely understand holding a position that you can't rationally support. What I don't understand is the mindset that would suggest that it is reasonable to voice it in public. Surely, you have to know that you will be challenged, and you have to kow that your answer will not be rational. Why even voice it if you know that you are going to end up looking somewhat foolish for so adamantly arguing a position that you can't rationally defend?
