CoffeeSaint said:
No, that is not a reference to Pope; my specialty is American literature, and I am not very familiar with Pope, more's the pity.
Too bad...I love English Lit. but tend to find Amr. Lit. a bit boring. I thought maybe it was from An Essay on Criticism...After that thought I checked out that poem again and thought this segment was applicable since the FF were concerned with Natural Law...
http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/1634.html
68 First follow NATURE, and your judgment frame
69By her just standard, which is still the same:
70Unerring Nature, still divinely bright,
71One clear, unchang'd, and universal light,
72Life, force, and beauty, must to all impart,
73At once the source, and end, and test of art.
74Art from that fund each just supply provides,
75Works without show, and without pomp presides:
76In some fair body thus th' informing soul
77With spirits feeds, with vigour fills the whole,
78Each motion guides, and ev'ry nerve sustains;
79Itself unseen, but in th' effects, remains.
80Some, to whom Heav'n in wit has been profuse,
81Want as much more, to turn it to its use;
82For wit and judgment often are at strife,
83Though meant each other's aid, like man and wife.
84'Tis more to guide, than spur the Muse's steed;
85Restrain his fury, than provoke his speed;
86The winged courser, like a gen'rous horse,
87Shows most true mettle when you check his course.
88 Those RULES of old discover'd, not devis'd,
89Are Nature still, but Nature methodis'd;
90Nature, like liberty, is but restrain'd
91By the same laws which first herself ordain'd.
As for my jumping on your as-yet unstated argument, my apologies; I am still learning proper debate etiquette, and sometimes I slip.
eh...no biggie....I forgive you. I'm certain I slip often enough as well.
I can see the logic of your interpretation, but I would argue that the building's peak is the key element, rather than its base; we need the foundation to reach the top, but without the higher order of rights, i.e., freedom and happiness, the bottom rung is meaningless.
But that portion in bold is completely subjective and not objectively considering the "bottom rung" in terms of its own inherent worth--it relies on individual interpretation of what is deemed "meaningful."
A life without liberty is not worth living;
Again--completely subjective...the word that gives that away is "worth." Worth to whom? My great-grandmother may have had the crappiest life EVER under the subjugation of whomever....but her life was of worth to me because without her, I would never have existed. And likewise--if my life is of worth--then that made her life at least a little worthwhile. It all depends on the subjective view of "worth."
neither, I would argue, is the life without happiness, or at least the pursuit thereof, the ability to act according to one's preferences. So is the base more important, or the pinnacle?
I say the base. Any summit built on unstable sands will crumble under pressure. No structure is greater than its foundation.
I want to take each life as capable of reaching great heights, and I think it is most important that, as a society, we encourage individuals to reach as high as they can. Simple existence is a biological imperative; I do not believe there will ever be a dearth of newborns, and no law that we could enact would end the natural urge to reproduce. This is not something we need to encourage, in order to reach the heights we should aim at. No, what we must encourage is the capability that each person has to achieve as much as they can achieve; in order to do that, we cannot tell a human being that she must lose her rights, that she is less important than another, nor that she is sinful, bad, or irresponsible, if all she wants is to control her own destiny. Pardon me; we can, and should, TELL her that, but we cannot legislate it, and make it a basic tenet of our society. Our society cannot be based on the disempowerment of individuals in favor of other individuals, based on an arbitrarily chosen morality.
This advocates a shifting foundation based on personal preference. A stable society values objective, unchanging values. There is most certainly a place for mercy--but misplaced mercy is no mercy at all. Freedom is not without responsibility. And if someone abuses freedom--it is no favor to that person--nor is it a favor to others who watch and learn from the example--to excuse the abuse in order to preserve some irresponsible individual's autonomy. The person who abuses her freedom should have real mercy--not the false mercy that simply seeks to "get rid of" the problem.
So, can we prove beyond a doubt that life is the most important of the inalienable rights?
What rights does someone who does not exist possess? Therefore--it is reasonable to presume the right to life is the most fundamental human right.
If not, how can we choose it over freedom without destroying everything worth living for?
Do you not see the inherent contradiction of this statement? There is no freedom without life--there is no subjective judging of what makes life WORTH living if there is no life. Furthermore--the woman who aborts in an effort to preserve her "freedom" denies the human she aborts the freedom she is defending for herself. The ZEF is a human that is at the complete control of another human--the mother--and THAT is where the abortion issue mirrors slavery--the fetus is a slave to the subjective desire of the mother--not the other way around.
Even if we value life, must our country, our government, our society, be based on the preservation of life at any price?
I say no.
Who said "at any price?" A woman who's life is at risk has the right to preserve her life. A woman who prefers to avoid an inconvenience merits less --much less--consideration. There are many circumstances in between....but life is a basic --no, THE basic--human right due all human beings.
