LAT on "life"

Today, the LAT editorializes for unrestricted abortion, against capital punishment, for monkeying with embryonic stem cells and cloning, and, presumably, for euthanasia. The sole underpinning for these positions cited by the LAT was "rights" -- the right to live, to die, to be free, to pursue happiness -- not that these rights are God-given, according to the LAT.

But the LAT seems confused about some of these things. Take the abortion question, for example. The LAT says every woman has the right to kill her unborn child. But doesn't that violate the child's right to life?

The LAT says the state doesn't have the right to execute people for crimes. Why not? The LAT doesn't say.

Scientists ought to have the right to experiment with embryonic stem cells and, eventually, to use them to clone or genetically modify human beings, because that could lead to less disease and better human beings. Why should this be permitted? Because humans are free, apparently, or because the idea is modern, the LAT seems to say.

The LAT cannot be accused of philosophical consistency.