[Radar]

Endangering a fetus is a crime, if it were not, then she would have been released immediately.

Endangering a Fetus is not a crime. A crime has only been committed when the rights of a non-consenting other have been violated. It may be against the law, but that law would then be the crime because it violates the highest law of all; Natural Law.

Natural law actually dicates nothing about rights per se.

Please take a moment to read the following two essays and get back to me. You will find they give a far more complete understanding of the concept than that somewhat inaccurate and short definition.

Both essays are more than 100 years old and like the Declaration of Independence, the principles espoused in them are as fresh today as the day they were written.

[quote]
The Law - By Frederic Bastiat

and

Natural Law - By Lysander Spooner

Are you deriving your opinion about the stark difference between the fetus and the child from an established paradigm or is this self-generated? If you're reading it somewhere I'd be interested in reading it myself.

Again, natural law is the easiest thing in the world to understand once you try to think about every problem from the angle of which solution would provide the most freedom and least intrusion by government on our lives; which solution would provide the most freedom at the least cost to the most people without violating the rights of some for the benefit of others, etc.. Natural law self-evident, but reading those links I provided will help you approach it from the right angle to make it clear and unambiguous.

Again this is a sort of grey area, a lack of consent is not dissent. Also, there are circumstances where people incapable of giving consent have both had treatment witheld as well as given. Circumstances vary.

I don't find this area gray in the slightest. A fetus is not a person and has no consent to offer even if they could. They have no rights because they are not an independent entity separate from their host. But even using your example of someone who isn't capable of offering consent, someone else usually makes decisions for them including pulling the plug from life support. Do you think a woman who pulls the plug on her husband when he's a vegetable is guilty of a crime? Let's say he never indicated anything to her one way or the other on the subject but she herself would never want to endure being a vegetable and wouldn't want to burden others in such away. And let's say she assumed her husband shared this opinion so she pulled the plug. Is she a criminal?

This isn't really an accurate comparison since the husband isn't a parasite inside of her body. If he were and she chose to remove him and end his life, it would no more be a crime than removing a tumor.

No, it wouldn't. Rights operate on a variable scale.

Rights are absolute as long as you're not violating the rights of others. You are born with them. You can't vote on them, have them taken away from you, sell them, or even give them away. You can choose not to exercise them; someone might violate them, but they are always there FROM THE MOMENT YOU ARE BORN (not before).

Many people have a hard time distinguishing the difference between rights and privileges even though they are the opposite of each other. A right is something we don't need ask permission to do. We are born with them. This includes sole ownership of our lives, minds, and bodies and the sole discretion of what to do with them.

Let's say you and I live next door to each other. I go outside and start walking back and forth across my back yard. I can do it all day and don't have to ask anyone. I can do this because I own my property. Neither you, nor the government can tell me not to walk back and forth in my own yard because it is my RIGHT to do so.

Now let's say I want to go to the store and cut through your backyard. You happen to think I'm an ok guy because I am a defender of your freedom and mine so you agree to let me do it.

This is a privilege. I am crossing your yard at your discretion and with your permission which you may revoke at any time. You could let me cross Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, but suddenly decide you don't like me anymore because you lost a debate to me on Friday and suddenly revoke permission. This would not violate my rights. But it would violate your rights if I continued to walk across your property even when you've revoked permission. You own your property and everything within your property that has been obtained honestly and without force or coercion.

Always remember, government has no rights; society has no rights; all rights are individual rights and you must be an individual to have individual rights.

Back to the fetus situation...

You own your body and everything within it. If you have a tapeworm, it's YOUR tapeworm. If you have another parasite such as a fetus inside of you, you own that too until the moment it is born. Up until that very second, it is property. And the moment it is no longer inside of your body, assuming it is alive, it ceased to be property and then is an individual person and is entitled to natural rights.

So monkeys, dogs, cats, spiders, trees, etc. are not alive?

All of those things are alive, but they do not possess human life and are not sentient beings. We were discussing human life. Perhaps I should have used the term "human" before life to help you avoid confusion.