Of course those rights came from government. They had to be written into your constitution, which can be amended by government. If they have to be safeguarded, then clearly they are not safe.Maybe not where you live, but in the US, certain rights ARE inalienable. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable.
Those rights do not come from government. We possess those rights in virtue of our existence. Some rights DO come from government, but fundamental rights do not.
That may well be. This is the whole point behind the great experiment of the US. Rights that are inalienable do NOT change over time, rather, they are recognized and safeguarded.
Not true. The RCC was ALWAYS against abortion. The RCC did NOT always teach that life begins at conception, but the RCC always condemned abortion at ANY stage.
In the second place, even if the RCC sanctioned abortion at one time, SO WHAT? What does that have to do with NOW?
More to the point: when I have I ever appealed to my Church, religion, holy book, or God as a reason why abortion must be outlawed? YOU are the one bringing religion into the discussion, not me.
We have a voice--and believe me, we will continue to use it until the scourge of abortion is lifted.
In the US, until the SCOTUS in 1973 conjured the right to abortion, it was a state issue. Now that the SCOTUS has overturned Roe, the issue has gone back to the states in the absence of federal legislation.
The RCC accepted abortion before quickening for centuries. They may or may not have liked the idea, but they certainly didn't oppose it. That was the standard position on abortion throughout Europe. What does it have to do with now? If rights are inalienable and unchanging, what has now got to do with anything?
Get your story right. Either rights are objective, unchanging, everpresent, immutable and completely independent of government action, or they are not. I would say not. I would say that rights are entirely at the mercy of government. That they change with fashion, do that the right to own slaves is taken away and the right to not be enslaved is given. The right to abort pregnancy before quickening is taken away, then restored, then taken away again, then restored again, all decided by the instruments of government. This has to be the case, as you have pointed out in the past, the religious position isn't really relevant. This is a secular matter, decided upon by secular authorities. And as you also point out, different secular authorities come to different ideas. How can you on the one hand claim that right to life is inalienable, and on the other day that it is for the states to decide?