If this is so, how do you propose we agree on what they are? I assume if we cut you open, we aren’t going to find a handy list starting on your spleen that ends, “See next organ,” for continuation. So merely asserting that they are “inherent in … a person” seems less than useful.
Uh-huh.
You have absolute rights to your own body and property. Absolute. We don’t have to agree on any enumerated rights.
The Constitution gives our government certain responsibilities and duties and certain powers to accomplish those. In some cases those powers may limit our absolute rights. But unless those powers are specifically given to the government then it has no power to limit our rights.
You’re talking to the wrong person here. I’m not a strict constructionalist. I just don’t believe in natural human rights. A right exists because people agree that it does and agree to not violate it (or that those who violate it should be punished). If the government decides that gays can get married, then gays have the right to get married. If it decides that people whose last name starts with R will be killed, then people whose last name starts with R no longer have the right to live.
Whether the government should let gays get married or not, or whether it should kill Richie Rich because of his last name or not is another question.
No, you don’t. My source informs me that under some circumstances, you and your body may be compelled to do some things for the greater good and survival of others, even if you don’t want to.
The rights arise from our being rationale, conscious creatures. Just as the pythagorian theorem arsise fram a triangle nature as a three sided object, so to do our rigts to “life, Liberty and the pursuit of happines”.