EQUAL RIGHTS?

"Equal rights" sounds like a very fair way to insure equality.   "Equal" is a word which cannot be modified or divided otherwise there is an "equality" which is not the same and this is not possible. If this premise is true, and I  believe it is, how can we discuss "women's rights", "minority rights"," labor rights"  or any other if we don't include "male rights", "fetal rights" and "majority rights".  Males, the unborn and the majority are left out of a long list of "special rights".  When rights conflict, who wins? Is a woman's right to kill her unborn greater than the right of the fetus to live? In this case, the women's right is contrived while that of the fetus is one of those we claim to be inalienable. If there are rights which apply to a limited group of people, we'd better stop using the "equal rights"  claim because it does not exist under these conditions.  Some people have rights which others do not enjoy.

Any right which is extended to any special group is not a "right" in the sense of the word but rather a "preference".  Preferential treatment implies an inequality and converts "equal rights" to "unequal rights".  There are rights which apply to everyone equally which are "inalienable".  Once we go beyond these, rights we grant through elected legislatures or judicial "legislation" are bound to be discriminatory and arbitrary.  

Lets not pretend that the gift of a "right" to special interests is anything but pandering.  The God-Father of Mafia fame gives favors for loyalty and so do politicians and, like the God-Father, expects something in return.