Devil's Advocate

Yes, along for the ride. I do not. It becomes an individual, which is the appropriate context for the kind of rights you are arguing for. Groups don't have rights, so coercing a pregnant individual not to have an abortion because a lot of other (well intentioned) individuals think so is a nonstarter. A majority of righted individuals cannot force the individual choice of another without negating their own rights.

Locke referred to God that which could not otherwise be rationally explained as a final argument in the form of sanction by an unimpeachable source. The structure of the following statement indicates the actual source of authority being appealed to: "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them", which is understood to mean as expressed by Bacon: "to be commanded, must be obeyed", and as expressed by Franklin, "helps those who help themselves." Nationality cannot be fully understood without coming to terms with the spiritual nature of the group, specifically what God they choose to obey. Credibility of the claim depends entirely on self-evidence of a common nature; "that all men are created equal". I think globalism is likely going to assert itself regardless of the spiritual divisiveness of those who embrace nationalism. I hope that the emerging government(s) will remain bound to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", which is generic enough to respect the free-will of all individuals to pursue a diversity of self-interests, and moral enough to operate within the context of ethical reciprocity. Leven en laten leven

Have the ability to express deliberately autonomous actions, i.e. it's along for the ride.

Rights are freedoms of action in a social context, so you may want to reconsider. The fetus has no ability to control the labor, and the mother retains the right to defend her life against whatever complications arise during the pregnancy, including labor, so...

The mother's actual rights subsume the potential rights of the fetus during these "interactions". Do you see how slippery the slope is now that you've fallen back to the second trimester?

Social interaction.

Agreed, because it is at this point that the newborn achieves independence, if not self-governance. Follow the umbilical. This remains an argument for potential at the highest point of the slippery slope. A right without choice or ability is a contradiction, and objective law requires non-contradictory application.

There's very little disagreement that a fetus begins as a potential man, or that It requires certain Rights to exist. The contention revolves around who, if anyone, is entitled to choose that It cease to exist. Even if no one gets to choose, Nature bats last. Either the Individual bearing that life is entitled to choose, or the State usurps that Right.

Fetal rights? No such thing, an egg yolk has no right to become a chicken. First off, pregnancy doesn't diminish or compromise individual rights because there's no contest between the actual and the potential. The whole concept of rights is dependent upon a choice of action, which a fetus certainly hasn't the ability to make, only the parent(s) do.

I don't believe the Law of Identity allows for any other interpretation. I believe that continuity implies the sameness of living, meaning those processes that any individual is in possession of that sustain their own life. A momentary lapse of mental faculty doesn't imply a death of self as long as the body that animates both flesh and mind retain the ability of self-generated action. Got body = got mind. The absence of a 2nd individual to dispute the original's claim to life implies no other definition is as reliable to posit self-hood, IMO.

No, for essentially the same reasons I point to in the Transporter Problem thread; the Law of Identity and the mind/body dichotomy. Easter philosophy and fake memories aside, this remains essentially the function of a particular body creating a particular mind. Resurrection or transportation constitute a closed loop (or zero sum game), whereas the introduction of new material, e.g. cloning, prosthetic bodies create duplication or additions to the original and therefore create a fundamentally different self.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." ~ Declaration of Independence Your willingness (and others) to choose (and be grateful for) a lesser evil, one you can live with, is likely why the ideal practice of rights remains beyond our ability to experience socially.

The distinction I was pointing to (that I hope you'll respond to) is that flawed as they were, the Founders actually dared to place a limit on their own rule by expressly establishing a rights violation benchmark that is objectively true. I believe this is unique in history, and makes "best in their time" argument irrelevant, because they fell short. Far from excusing all prior leaders for not knowing better, the truth of this benchmark determines the immorality of all prior forms of social leadership (including their own) because the lesser of two evils remains fundamentally evil. In addition, I will presume that even in the worst of historical times there were always those who not only met the rights benchmark individually but would have changed the history of social rights recognition had they not been prevented from doing so by the brutes who were in charge in their day (and ours). So I will reserve my gratitude to those individuals throughout history who not only knew better, but practiced it (which included certain individuals who were also Founders).

Supporting reference material to previous post: https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536

I wouldn't thank the Founders who didn't live up to the language they were embracing, and there were those who felt betrayed by the perpetuation of slavery but accepted the less than perfect administration of individual rights that was available at that time. I can respect that they established a framework that allowed for the eventual acceptance of rights we enjoy today. Of course the flip side is that today's (and their constituencies) can also work to erode what we have today. The "experiment" isn't over. But again, can you also endorse the flawed practice of colonialism for the potential improvement of rights that might have followed? Where is the British Declaration of stated intent to move in that direction??