“I think (hope, even) that the Constitution is trying to be even-handed with its use of the term ‘Creator’ but if what is meant by that ‘God,’ then I would reject it on that score.”

Whether the use of the word “Creator” means “God” or not is irrelevant. The use of the term “their Creator” implies people are “created”. If it doesn’t mean they are “created”, what does it mean? If it doesn’t mean people are endowed with rights when they are created, when do they get endowed with them?

“It is not ‘God’s Law’ but ‘Human Law’ that we must formulate and agree to live by.”

What do we use as a basis for Human Law?

“You wish to grant rights to a bit of protoplasm …”

You are rationalizing again, and you know it.

“The proper imposition by society on others should be one, and one only: that no man or woman has the right to initiate force on others.”

Why not? If the law allows the use of violence against the most helpless and defenseless, it can be used against anyone. You say that a baby has rights only after it is born. What about those who are already advocating for infanticide up to 30 days after birth and euthanasia for the elderly and infirm? And in the most grotesque use of the word, these ideas come from a person who calls himself an “ethicist”. BTW, how old will you be in 2040? http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/dec/05120205.html

“You concern yourself with protoplasm, and condone all manner of atrocities against human beings …”

What “atrocities” do I condone against human beings?

By my last point, I was showing the absurdity of your position.

Re your second point: You wish to grant rights to a bit of protoplasm, which requires extinguishing the rights of the living woman in whose body that protoplasm is growing. It IS a choice here. If embryos have rights, why not eggs and sperm? If no matter how a woman becomes pregnant, she is to be the slave of that embryo until at the least it is born, with no care or concern for her wishes in the matter. Sorry, but I disagree with you. And why should you care if someone else has a child or an abortion? How does that change the fact that actual rights of living human beings are being abridged on so many fronts? Why are you taking up for protoplasm?

Re point 3: the imposition with which I am concerned is taxation. The proper imposition by society on others should be one, and one only: that no man or woman has the right to initiate force on others. That should be the guiding principle for all social interaction. It is not. You concern yourself with protoplasm, and condone all manner of atrocities against human beings in the name of … I don’t even know what. What is the purpose of forcing people to do things, again?

By your last point, I suppose you would go on to justify murdering those who condone abortion. Since you hold abortion to be murder, it’s an easy step to take, am I wrong? Because you cannot know when a person is still an embryo whether he or she will grow up to be pro-choice or not.

“…the issue is actually, “When should rights begin?”

According to The Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Slavery was inconsistent with this clause which led to the ultimate abolition of that institution. Note that it says “created” not “born”. Therefore, your rights start when you are created, and only continue after you are born. Abortion, like slavery, is nothing more than the exercise of property rights over another human being, and if you have to rationalize it, as you are doing, you know it’s wrong.

“If the unborn have rights, then the living do not.”

This has got to be one of the worst non-sequiturs that I’ve ever seen. Actually, it’s the inverse that is true – if the most innocent and defenseless among us have no rights, the rest of us have no rights, their being simply a question of whoever has political power.

“I’m against slavery in ALL its forms. Are you?”

I can see where this question is leading – that any imposition by society on the individual constitutes some form of “slavery”. You apparently resent any such imposition on yourself but don’t hesitate to demand from the so-called “unwanted” their very lives. Well, by what authority do you decide who will live and who will die?

“And you people wonder why someone might want an abortion.”

Even though I cannot support something I wouldn’t want to have happen to me, I must admit that you might have a point here. Perhaps it should be reserved for aborting people with bad ideas like abortion.

When the child is born is when it should acquire rights. Not before.

Same argument slave-owners used to justify slavery.

Why should the line be drawn at birth? Why should people acquire rights only at birth, when they are stand-alone individuals, even though they still remain very dependent on others for their every need?

To preserve the rights of the mother, that is why. As long as that baby is inside her, she ought to have the right to terminate its life. Once it is born, neither she nor anyone else can have that right. Otherwise, a woman is declared a brood mare, a slave to the unborn, with no rights of her own because she has become pregnant. Some of those who oppose abortion, do not care about the circumstances in which the woman became pregnant. Others make exceptions in cases of rape. Others include other situations in which it is to be acceptable.

This is a kind of dictatorship by society to women, for what purpose? What is the point of YOU telling me what I may do with my body? You are essentially trying to tell me that if I become pregnant I lose my right to decide how my life shall continue. I am to be held hostage by this embryo, this fetus, this unborn thing.

It is not a decision that should be made by anyone but the woman involved.

“I want to know why supporting a woman’s right to choose how she will live her life is a leftist position.”

The “right to choose how she will live her life” is a broad statement that can mean anything to anyone. What do you mean by it?