"positive 'right to abortion' nowhere in evidence in the constitution"
This is a dangerous route to traverse. If we only have the "rights" that are "in evidence in the constitution," then we really don't have much in the way of rights.
The Constitution doesn't confer ANY rights to people. The rights to marriage, to eat, to sleep, to have sex, to work, to do much of anything are NOT in the Constitution. That doesn't make those rights non-existent.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments aren't just afterthoughts. We have a semi-infinite number of rights that are not "in evidence in the constitution." To believe the latter is to imply that we can only do that which is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. That is a complete inversion of what the Constitution is for: to place limits on the GOVERNMENT, not the people.
As for the rest, well:
"Abortion: A Philosophical and Scientific Approach" is available online.
1. What are rights?
2. Why do we have/need rights (if we do)?
3. What foundational trait distinguishes humans from all other animals?
4. What physical characteristic makes that trait possible?
5. At what point in the development of a fetus does this characteristic first manifest itself in the brain?
6. That point is the MINIMUM demarcation between what it means to be a PERSON (in a very rudimentary, primitive sense with the possibility of having rights that need to be protected) and just a living entity that does not yet possess the uniquely HUMAN characteristic that differentiates us from any other living entities.
7. These facts are OBJECTIVE, even if the borderline of when this occurs can be somewhat fuzzy.
This point in gestation occurs around six months. Before that, the fetus does not have the brain structures that even minimally qualify it for personhood, i.e., a being with rights. After that point, one can reasonably argue for restrictions against killing the fetus.
But, regardless, in the extremely rare cases after that point where it can be objectively shown that the woman's life is in ACTUAL danger from the pregnancy, HER life, her ACTUAL independent existence takes precedence over any POTENTIAL that is physically, parasitically dependent on her being to exist.
It's not "privacy" that underpins the right to abortion (though we do have such a right, whether "in evidence in the constitution" or not), but personal autonomy arising from our SELF-OWNERSHIP. The burden of proof to ban ANY and ALL abortions is on those who DENY our right to self-ownership. Self-ownership is the DEFAULT position. I should think that this whole mask/vaccine mandate debacle should/would have made that fact crystal clear.
In “A Last Survey,” writer-philosopher Ayn Rand wrote, “One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.” She also wrote that, “Not every wrong idea is an indication of a fundamental philosophical evil in a person’s convictions; the anti-abortion stand is such an indication.”(Nov.-Dec., 1975, The Ayn Rand Letter.)
In Ayn Rand Answers (2005), Rand says, “I’d like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo, which is only some undeveloped cells. (Abortion at the last minute — when a baby is formed — is a different issue.)”
This is most emphatically NOT an issue that should be "left to the states" to decide. Just because Y is not a federal issue does NOT mean states can AUTOMATICALLY pass laws about Y. That is not what the Tenth Amendment says or implies. That would just allow states to become localized tyrannies. Yes, certain issues are the bailiwick of states, for them to legally deal with, but they are PERMITTED to deal with/have jurisdiction over ONLY A LIMITED RANGE OF ISSUES, ONES THAT DO NOT VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, ones that emerge from the ONLY proper purpose of government, i.e., to protect our rights from infringement by others, whether those others are individuals or arms of the State.
Both sides in this controversy commit the same violations of critical thinking: they rely on the Circular Argument Fallacy of assuming what they are obligated to prove: that an embryo/fetus (at stage X) is/is not a PERSON with RIGHTS that cannot/can be killed rather than murdered.
Relying primarily on faith-based principles is a gross violation of the principles of critical thinking. But that's the main crutch used by those against any and all abortions. They have little else to fall back upon. Adherents have told me that people are not animals; that's it's wrong to compare/contrast humans and animals; that our rights emerge from the fact that we have "human blood"; and much more. Evasion and ignorance masquerading as "facts."
Anti-abortionists like to harp on the phrase “a human life.”
Well, duh. It IS a HUMAN embryo/fetus, after all, not a cabbage. And it’s obviously ALIVE.
1. A sperm is a living entity
2. An egg is a living entity
3. When these two entities merge, the resulting embryo is a living entity
4. The moment they merge, that embryo does not instantly acquire fundamental rights
The real issue is whether that living entity is a human BEING with VOLITION, thus, with fundamental HUMAN RIGHTS that should be protected.
As for the rabid other side who thinks it is okay to "abort" a 30-day old infant, well, they are just nuts. And evil.
ASSERTIONS without objective evidence or proof that even non-believers can evaluate are not arguments.
But such form the core of this "debate," the same tactics utilized by every statist and collectivist to push through the destruction of rights, freedom, and morality.
(From a graphic I created on this topic):
What (objectively) (non-religiously [as required by the principles of critical thinking]) distinguishes/differentiates humans from other animals? What is the foundation (the basis) for our rights? What are rights? Why do we have them? These rights are what makes killing an innocent human being murder. When does (if it does) a human embryo/fetus develop the (minimal) capacity/trait/attribute necessary to transform it into a human being and make (any) rights possible (on at least a rudimentary level)?
Both sides commit a Circular Argument/Begging the Question Fallacy by assuming what they need to prove, i.e., that fetuses/embryos do/do not have rights and thus cannot/can properly be killed.
Russ, I think your comment is probably the best I've seen on this topic, and I've read a lot. Bravo!
I especially like: "It's not "privacy" that underpins the right to abortion (though we do have such a right, whether "in evidence in the constitution" or not), but personal autonomy arising from our SELF-OWNERSHIP. The burden of proof to ban ANY and ALL abortions is on those who DENY our right to self-ownership. Self-ownership is the DEFAULT position. I should think that this whole mask/vaccine mandate debacle should/would have made that fact crystal clear."
Those who say "we should leave the abortion issue up to the states" are implying that they also believe states should be allowed to force covid vaccinations on state residents, if democratically elected legislatures choose to do so.
1) It's not a scientific argument at any point of the discussion because it requires a value judgment. Science is a system by which abstract ideas are applied to discover truth about reality, and such a system cannot be used to determine hierarchical values. No matter what stage of development you choose as a cutoff point for abortion, you're making a value judgment about when a gestating baby is considered to have humanity and all of its intrinsic rights. You can point to whatever scientific evidence you want that suggests particular points of development, but within that scope, you are explicitly defining criteria for "humanity", and at that point, you must answer the following question: *why* did you choose *that* criteria? The subsequent question is: are there any circumstances post-birth where such criteria can be used to define a person as non-human and thereby justify their killing? If so, are you willing to accept those circumstances?
2) Self-ownership, also called individual sovereignty, is itself a value that is implicit within your argument. It raises the following question: why does individual sovereignty have value and why is it worth protecting? A good starting point is John Locke, particularly his Second Treatise, but it goes well beyond that. Aquinas is the next worthwhile read after Locke. I'll leave it to you to look into the specifics, but ultimately the value of individual sovereignty stems from the belief that human life is of intrinsic value (and if you really want to get specific, it's of divine value because this stems from Judeo-Christian ethics, hence Locke and Aquinas). If you believe individual sovereignty is an intrinsic right and therefore of value and must be protected, then you believe that human life is of intrinsic value and must be protected, and that all of our rights are naturally a product of our humanity. That means "life" is higher up in the hierarchy than "liberty."
———
With those two points established, we're right back to the beginning of the argument: at what point do we want to define a gestating baby as having humanity and all of its intrinsic rights? That is not a simple or easy question to answer and is why the discussion continues to this day.
"Abortion: A Philosophical AND Scientific Approach"
If you’re referencing that shibboleth of the supposed “Is-Ought” Dichotomy, well, that’s no dichotomy, at all. Using Aristotle’s Law of Identity and the conditional imperative, what X IS determines what it SHOULD or must do in context Y to achieve Z.
Science itself is unpinned by people utilizing value systems: is A worth pursuing: why SHOULD I adhere to critical thinking principles and the scientific method; SHOULD I pursue course R rather than avenue S for this query; why SHOULD I be honest and truthful in analyzing my results and presenting them; and on and on and on.
WHY is science worth pursuing AT ALL? While the actual things we do in scientific research should be objective and not tainted by, for example, politics or our emotions, the very EXISTENCE of science is grounded in the fact that we find it of VALUE.
The PHILOSOPHY of science deals with many of these very issues.
So, you’re wrong. While what volition and rights and morality and personhood etc. ARE and how they OPERATE arise from metaphysics and epistemology and ethics and politics—all subdivisions of philosophy—the next step is to use SCIENCE, as I said, to determine WHAT and HOW and WHEN things happen in fetal development that lead to the cortical structures that make volition possible and that differentiate humans from all other animals.
And, yes, we DO use these facts post-birth when we decide that someone is brain dead and, thus, we are not committing murder when we unplug someone, and he then dies.
2. I’ll ignore your condescending tone—nah, I won’t—in “leav[ing] to” me to “look into” these issues. Good grief.
Wrong again: there ARE no intrinsic values. Values always suppose one who values, an entity that acts to gain and keep those things it values for a particular purpose/context.
Everything I wrote is true.
Just because YOU don’t know the answers to these questions, that doesn’t mean the rest of us are equally ignorant.
Goodness, that is some serious attitude. Yes, I understood your article title. My criticism was that involving science in the discussion of the topic as a whole doesn't contribute very much since the point of contention is at a much higher level of abstraction.
The notion that how something "is" determines what it "should" do is predicated on the idea that objects have defined functions irrespective of perception, which is entirely incorrect. Humans perceive based upon utility first and how something actually "is" second, which means that we're fundamentally operating within a value structure any time we do something. More succinctly, human perception imprints a value structure on the world.
Science can provide additional information for making decisions, but the decisions themselves are made based upon a hierarchy of values. Here's a ridiculous example to showcase what I mean: you have an option to eat either a candy bar or an apple, but not both—which do you choose? The science of nutrition informs us that the apple is the healthier option in every respect, so does that mean one *should* select it for consumption over the candy bar? Not necessarily, because it depends on what you value. If you consider the candy bar provides more pleasure and you consider the pleasure of the consumption to be of higher value—at least within that moment—then selecting the candy bar makes the most sense. So while science may have provided more information to use when making the decision, it's your value structure that determines whether that information affects your decision.
Moreover, science itself operates within a hierarchy of values. Science is the primary mechanism for ascertaining observable truth of the world, and as you said, we engage it in it because we find it of value. More specifically, we find truth itself to be of incredibly high value. If human beings didn't value truth, then there would never have been the advent of science. If there is no value in something, then why do it? That's the most fundamental question to the discussion. If a hierarchy of values is a necessary condition for science, then science cannot itself be used to determine anything within that hierarchy of values—it's impossible. That's how the meta-logical framework that science operates within works, which itself exists within a particular metaphysic. If you reject the metaphysic or even the meta-logic, science goes out the window with it (this is Modus Tollens).
Also, I suggested you look into the ideas I mentioned both because they're too detailed to leave in a Substack comment and because the discussion itself is not meant to be a debate. If the ideas sound interesting at all to someone, then looking into them for oneself provides a more valuable understanding. It wasn't to be condescending—it's to encourage people to research for their own interests if they desire.
———
I'll leave it at this: if there are no intrinsic values, then why should human life have any value? Why should truth have any value? Why should anyone care about either of those things? Those aren't simple questions, but they're necessary ones because you must start with the abstract idea first.
You already said you don’t know the answers to the questions involved in the abortion issue, so I see no reason bothering to answer your ignorant comments, especially since the points you did make were wrong.
Skepticism is a self-refuting philosophy. Subjectivism is the crudest and lowest of logical fallacies. Pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook is laughable.
I agree that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (and the philosophical underpinnings of our rights, in general) are ignored/evaded/dismissed by most people and organizations in today's world.
The problem with listing more rights in another amendment is that those who ignore the current Bill of Rights are unlikely to pay any more respect to a new amendment. Plus, as I wrote, there is a semi-infinite list of rights that could be included. As one of the Founders mentioned who had doubts about including a Bill of Rights, a problem with such is that government and people will tend to think that ONLY those rights are the ones we have…the exact problem we face some two-plus-centuries later.
Technically, it's never too late to fight for freedom. But what we need is a sea-change in attitudes—assumptions, as you say—about what freedom is and what it means. Once respect for freedom, rights, and morality are lost by too many people in society, no number of laws or amendments or whatever will secure our liberty. Our rights have to be secured in the hearts and minds of the populace—from the bottom up—or nothing will succeed. A top-down approach will, in the long run, be undercut and destroyed by a people who don't value the things that make liberty possible.
Given the current state of the world as I see it, that struggle is facing an Everest-sized hill to climb…
(Also, I found your typo amusing…and unintentionally dead on…)
"positive 'right to abortion' nowhere in evidence in the constitution"
This is a dangerous route to traverse. If we only have the "rights" that are "in evidence in the constitution," then we really don't have much in the way of rights.
The Constitution doesn't confer ANY rights to people. The rights to marriage, to eat, to sleep, to have sex, to work, to do much of anything are NOT in the Constitution. That doesn't make those rights non-existent.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments aren't just afterthoughts. We have a semi-infinite number of rights that are not "in evidence in the constitution." To believe the latter is to imply that we can only do that which is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. That is a complete inversion of what the Constitution is for: to place limits on the GOVERNMENT, not the people.
As for the rest, well:
"Abortion: A Philosophical and Scientific Approach" is available online.
1. What are rights?
2. Why do we have/need rights (if we do)?
3. What foundational trait distinguishes humans from all other animals?
4. What physical characteristic makes that trait possible?
5. At what point in the development of a fetus does this characteristic first manifest itself in the brain?
6. That point is the MINIMUM demarcation between what it means to be a PERSON (in a very rudimentary, primitive sense with the possibility of having rights that need to be protected) and just a living entity that does not yet possess the uniquely HUMAN characteristic that differentiates us from any other living entities.
7. These facts are OBJECTIVE, even if the borderline of when this occurs can be somewhat fuzzy.
This point in gestation occurs around six months. Before that, the fetus does not have the brain structures that even minimally qualify it for personhood, i.e., a being with rights. After that point, one can reasonably argue for restrictions against killing the fetus.
But, regardless, in the extremely rare cases after that point where it can be objectively shown that the woman's life is in ACTUAL danger from the pregnancy, HER life, her ACTUAL independent existence takes precedence over any POTENTIAL that is physically, parasitically dependent on her being to exist.
It's not "privacy" that underpins the right to abortion (though we do have such a right, whether "in evidence in the constitution" or not), but personal autonomy arising from our SELF-OWNERSHIP. The burden of proof to ban ANY and ALL abortions is on those who DENY our right to self-ownership. Self-ownership is the DEFAULT position. I should think that this whole mask/vaccine mandate debacle should/would have made that fact crystal clear.
In “A Last Survey,” writer-philosopher Ayn Rand wrote, “One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.” She also wrote that, “Not every wrong idea is an indication of a fundamental philosophical evil in a person’s convictions; the anti-abortion stand is such an indication.”(Nov.-Dec., 1975, The Ayn Rand Letter.)
In Ayn Rand Answers (2005), Rand says, “I’d like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo, which is only some undeveloped cells. (Abortion at the last minute — when a baby is formed — is a different issue.)”
This is most emphatically NOT an issue that should be "left to the states" to decide. Just because Y is not a federal issue does NOT mean states can AUTOMATICALLY pass laws about Y. That is not what the Tenth Amendment says or implies. That would just allow states to become localized tyrannies. Yes, certain issues are the bailiwick of states, for them to legally deal with, but they are PERMITTED to deal with/have jurisdiction over ONLY A LIMITED RANGE OF ISSUES, ONES THAT DO NOT VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, ones that emerge from the ONLY proper purpose of government, i.e., to protect our rights from infringement by others, whether those others are individuals or arms of the State.
Both sides in this controversy commit the same violations of critical thinking: they rely on the Circular Argument Fallacy of assuming what they are obligated to prove: that an embryo/fetus (at stage X) is/is not a PERSON with RIGHTS that cannot/can be killed rather than murdered.
Relying primarily on faith-based principles is a gross violation of the principles of critical thinking. But that's the main crutch used by those against any and all abortions. They have little else to fall back upon. Adherents have told me that people are not animals; that's it's wrong to compare/contrast humans and animals; that our rights emerge from the fact that we have "human blood"; and much more. Evasion and ignorance masquerading as "facts."
Anti-abortionists like to harp on the phrase “a human life.”
Well, duh. It IS a HUMAN embryo/fetus, after all, not a cabbage. And it’s obviously ALIVE.
1. A sperm is a living entity
2. An egg is a living entity
3. When these two entities merge, the resulting embryo is a living entity
4. The moment they merge, that embryo does not instantly acquire fundamental rights
The real issue is whether that living entity is a human BEING with VOLITION, thus, with fundamental HUMAN RIGHTS that should be protected.
As for the rabid other side who thinks it is okay to "abort" a 30-day old infant, well, they are just nuts. And evil.
ASSERTIONS without objective evidence or proof that even non-believers can evaluate are not arguments.
But such form the core of this "debate," the same tactics utilized by every statist and collectivist to push through the destruction of rights, freedom, and morality.
(From a graphic I created on this topic):
What (objectively) (non-religiously [as required by the principles of critical thinking]) distinguishes/differentiates humans from other animals? What is the foundation (the basis) for our rights? What are rights? Why do we have them? These rights are what makes killing an innocent human being murder. When does (if it does) a human embryo/fetus develop the (minimal) capacity/trait/attribute necessary to transform it into a human being and make (any) rights possible (on at least a rudimentary level)?
Both sides commit a Circular Argument/Begging the Question Fallacy by assuming what they need to prove, i.e., that fetuses/embryos do/do not have rights and thus cannot/can properly be killed.
Russ, I think your comment is probably the best I've seen on this topic, and I've read a lot. Bravo!
I especially like: "It's not "privacy" that underpins the right to abortion (though we do have such a right, whether "in evidence in the constitution" or not), but personal autonomy arising from our SELF-OWNERSHIP. The burden of proof to ban ANY and ALL abortions is on those who DENY our right to self-ownership. Self-ownership is the DEFAULT position. I should think that this whole mask/vaccine mandate debacle should/would have made that fact crystal clear."
Those who say "we should leave the abortion issue up to the states" are implying that they also believe states should be allowed to force covid vaccinations on state residents, if democratically elected legislatures choose to do so.
Thanks for your kind comments. Glad you found what I wrote of value. Thanks also for taking the time to read it.
A couple of points to consider:
1) It's not a scientific argument at any point of the discussion because it requires a value judgment. Science is a system by which abstract ideas are applied to discover truth about reality, and such a system cannot be used to determine hierarchical values. No matter what stage of development you choose as a cutoff point for abortion, you're making a value judgment about when a gestating baby is considered to have humanity and all of its intrinsic rights. You can point to whatever scientific evidence you want that suggests particular points of development, but within that scope, you are explicitly defining criteria for "humanity", and at that point, you must answer the following question: *why* did you choose *that* criteria? The subsequent question is: are there any circumstances post-birth where such criteria can be used to define a person as non-human and thereby justify their killing? If so, are you willing to accept those circumstances?
2) Self-ownership, also called individual sovereignty, is itself a value that is implicit within your argument. It raises the following question: why does individual sovereignty have value and why is it worth protecting? A good starting point is John Locke, particularly his Second Treatise, but it goes well beyond that. Aquinas is the next worthwhile read after Locke. I'll leave it to you to look into the specifics, but ultimately the value of individual sovereignty stems from the belief that human life is of intrinsic value (and if you really want to get specific, it's of divine value because this stems from Judeo-Christian ethics, hence Locke and Aquinas). If you believe individual sovereignty is an intrinsic right and therefore of value and must be protected, then you believe that human life is of intrinsic value and must be protected, and that all of our rights are naturally a product of our humanity. That means "life" is higher up in the hierarchy than "liberty."
———
With those two points established, we're right back to the beginning of the argument: at what point do we want to define a gestating baby as having humanity and all of its intrinsic rights? That is not a simple or easy question to answer and is why the discussion continues to this day.
1. My article is called:
"Abortion: A Philosophical AND Scientific Approach"
If you’re referencing that shibboleth of the supposed “Is-Ought” Dichotomy, well, that’s no dichotomy, at all. Using Aristotle’s Law of Identity and the conditional imperative, what X IS determines what it SHOULD or must do in context Y to achieve Z.
Science itself is unpinned by people utilizing value systems: is A worth pursuing: why SHOULD I adhere to critical thinking principles and the scientific method; SHOULD I pursue course R rather than avenue S for this query; why SHOULD I be honest and truthful in analyzing my results and presenting them; and on and on and on.
WHY is science worth pursuing AT ALL? While the actual things we do in scientific research should be objective and not tainted by, for example, politics or our emotions, the very EXISTENCE of science is grounded in the fact that we find it of VALUE.
The PHILOSOPHY of science deals with many of these very issues.
So, you’re wrong. While what volition and rights and morality and personhood etc. ARE and how they OPERATE arise from metaphysics and epistemology and ethics and politics—all subdivisions of philosophy—the next step is to use SCIENCE, as I said, to determine WHAT and HOW and WHEN things happen in fetal development that lead to the cortical structures that make volition possible and that differentiate humans from all other animals.
And, yes, we DO use these facts post-birth when we decide that someone is brain dead and, thus, we are not committing murder when we unplug someone, and he then dies.
2. I’ll ignore your condescending tone—nah, I won’t—in “leav[ing] to” me to “look into” these issues. Good grief.
Wrong again: there ARE no intrinsic values. Values always suppose one who values, an entity that acts to gain and keep those things it values for a particular purpose/context.
Everything I wrote is true.
Just because YOU don’t know the answers to these questions, that doesn’t mean the rest of us are equally ignorant.
Sorry. Better luck next time.
Goodness, that is some serious attitude. Yes, I understood your article title. My criticism was that involving science in the discussion of the topic as a whole doesn't contribute very much since the point of contention is at a much higher level of abstraction.
The notion that how something "is" determines what it "should" do is predicated on the idea that objects have defined functions irrespective of perception, which is entirely incorrect. Humans perceive based upon utility first and how something actually "is" second, which means that we're fundamentally operating within a value structure any time we do something. More succinctly, human perception imprints a value structure on the world.
Science can provide additional information for making decisions, but the decisions themselves are made based upon a hierarchy of values. Here's a ridiculous example to showcase what I mean: you have an option to eat either a candy bar or an apple, but not both—which do you choose? The science of nutrition informs us that the apple is the healthier option in every respect, so does that mean one *should* select it for consumption over the candy bar? Not necessarily, because it depends on what you value. If you consider the candy bar provides more pleasure and you consider the pleasure of the consumption to be of higher value—at least within that moment—then selecting the candy bar makes the most sense. So while science may have provided more information to use when making the decision, it's your value structure that determines whether that information affects your decision.
Moreover, science itself operates within a hierarchy of values. Science is the primary mechanism for ascertaining observable truth of the world, and as you said, we engage it in it because we find it of value. More specifically, we find truth itself to be of incredibly high value. If human beings didn't value truth, then there would never have been the advent of science. If there is no value in something, then why do it? That's the most fundamental question to the discussion. If a hierarchy of values is a necessary condition for science, then science cannot itself be used to determine anything within that hierarchy of values—it's impossible. That's how the meta-logical framework that science operates within works, which itself exists within a particular metaphysic. If you reject the metaphysic or even the meta-logic, science goes out the window with it (this is Modus Tollens).
Also, I suggested you look into the ideas I mentioned both because they're too detailed to leave in a Substack comment and because the discussion itself is not meant to be a debate. If the ideas sound interesting at all to someone, then looking into them for oneself provides a more valuable understanding. It wasn't to be condescending—it's to encourage people to research for their own interests if they desire.
———
I'll leave it at this: if there are no intrinsic values, then why should human life have any value? Why should truth have any value? Why should anyone care about either of those things? Those aren't simple questions, but they're necessary ones because you must start with the abstract idea first.
You already said you don’t know the answers to the questions involved in the abortion issue, so I see no reason bothering to answer your ignorant comments, especially since the points you did make were wrong.
Skepticism is a self-refuting philosophy. Subjectivism is the crudest and lowest of logical fallacies. Pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook is laughable.
Your “ideas” reek of all three.
> claims I'm being condescending
> proceeds to be condescending
Aight, good luck then, dude. You'll need it.
You get what you give…and deserve.
I agree that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (and the philosophical underpinnings of our rights, in general) are ignored/evaded/dismissed by most people and organizations in today's world.
The problem with listing more rights in another amendment is that those who ignore the current Bill of Rights are unlikely to pay any more respect to a new amendment. Plus, as I wrote, there is a semi-infinite list of rights that could be included. As one of the Founders mentioned who had doubts about including a Bill of Rights, a problem with such is that government and people will tend to think that ONLY those rights are the ones we have…the exact problem we face some two-plus-centuries later.
Technically, it's never too late to fight for freedom. But what we need is a sea-change in attitudes—assumptions, as you say—about what freedom is and what it means. Once respect for freedom, rights, and morality are lost by too many people in society, no number of laws or amendments or whatever will secure our liberty. Our rights have to be secured in the hearts and minds of the populace—from the bottom up—or nothing will succeed. A top-down approach will, in the long run, be undercut and destroyed by a people who don't value the things that make liberty possible.
Given the current state of the world as I see it, that struggle is facing an Everest-sized hill to climb…
(Also, I found your typo amusing…and unintentionally dead on…)