Careful, Scotsman -- you're close to treading on Top Gun's turf.
The next thing we know you two will be scratching and clawing at each other's cheerleading outfit to see which of you will be the lead cheerleader.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
False. Sophistry.
No one "assigns" rights, Scotsman.
Rights are endowed at creation, at conception.
As for "what controls what", you really do need to read the Realities of Rights thread I linked you to earlier.
Then you wouldn't use the word "control".
If you read the opening post in that thread, you would know that the three general classes of rights have a natural hierarchy as I list here in order of foundational and overriding application: the right to life, the right to security of person, and the right to freedom of action.
It really is very simple, Scotsman.
No need to pro-abortionistly sophistrically overcomplicate an uncomplicated matter.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
False.
It is, however, nice to know that you apparently went back to some of this thread's earliest posts and got yourself caught up.
The reference you chose to post, in what you were erroneously hoping to be your pro-abortoinist's coup de gras, was simply taken out of context by you in typical pro-abortionist misconstruence.
The bottom line there, Scotsman, is that if you feel that someone yelling at you is threatening your security of person, you have a right to take action, but if that person is truly not threatening your very life, then you can't kill that person simply because they're making you feel uncomfortable lest you be arrested for unjustified use of force and likely convicted of manslaughter ... or worse.
You really do need to read for comprehension, Scotsman.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
There you go again, asking in repetition the same question over and over to which I've clearly stated the answer multiple times.
You do know that in so repetitively doing you are appearing either a bit senile ... or very desperate.
Which is it, Scotsman?
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Okay, I'll answer that question once again for you.
Read the answer slowly so that it will sink in for you.
When the pre-natal person is directly threatening the mother's very life, the mother can choose to take self-defensive action, and if that reasonable course of action results in the death of the pre-natal person, that's what rights-respecting survival of the fittest is, and no wrong-doing has occurred.
It really is that simple, Scotsman, just as I've pointed out so many, many times in this thread.
Your utilitarian sophister's trick of pretending obvious realities don't exist is easily rejected.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
Translation: "In truth, I, Scotsman, only want to pounce on absolute irrelevancies merely to divertively digress from the truth of murderous abortion that I just can't handle emotionally because the fact is that I have absolutely nothing scientifically or rights-based reality-wise to counter Chip's effective, accurate, obviously rational arguments." 
Never be so blantant in your obvious denial ... in the presence of a psychologist. 
What's truly boring, as you project, is you and your cohort's tired old frenzied rah rah irrationalized hysterial sophistries -- they do get old, easy to refute, but old.
Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.
