The right to life.

[prometeus]

The right to life, does it exist, and what does it mean?
Is it the right to exist? To be born? To be maintained living? To be saved? To live as one pleases? Does it mean that "living" must have certain or any standards or just exist? Who is responsible for recognizing this right to life and who has the obligation to fulfill the "supporting" roles involved with the various aspects of this right?

If a right to life does exist, how and where is it recognized, is it explicit or implied? Is it a matter of law or just an ideal to be aspired to?

I think that human history demonstrates beyond any doubt that life has only meaning under certain conditions. "Give me liberty or give me death" amply supports that notion. Individuals, groups and entire societies have resorted to killing when it suited them, under the guise of the greater good if not outright desire for domination.

What role does "quality of life" play in this right? If one is not satisfied with the life one has does one or should one terminate it? Should that be a right too?

 

[Felicity]

I believe the US DoI states it's "self-evident." I agree with those guys.

 

[prometeus]

So does that mean we should have slaves then?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Cattle die and kinsmen die, and surely one day you will die, too. The "right to life" is a ridiculous fiction-- contradicted by the whole of human history, every government that has ever existed, the basis of all governmental authority, and biology itself.

Entities only have those rights which they can enforce. Entities which are not strong enough, either individually or collectively, have no rights at all-- save those extended to them by those who fight on their behalf.

 

[Ikari]

Cattle die and kinsmen die, and surely one day you will die, too. The "right to life" is a ridiculous fiction-- contradicted by the whole of human history, every government that has ever existed, the basis of all governmental authority, and biology itself.

Entities only have those rights which they can enforce. Entities which are not strong enough, either individually or collectively, have no rights at all-- save those extended to them by those who fight on their behalf.

People do die, this is true. But while we exist we have the right not to have our life prematurely snuffed out by another. While there are accidents, and all sorts of ways to die; no one has the right to purposefully take the life of another human without just cause (i.e. your own life being threatened). Rights always exist, it doesn't matter if they are upheld or acknowledged; rights being innate and inalienable can not be taken away. I will always have the right to life. That doesn't mean someone can't or won't infringe upon that right, but I always have it for as long as I draw breath. Force can be used to suppress rights, to infringe upon them; but nothing can take them away.

 

[Felicity]

So does that mean we should have slaves then?

I don't recal the part of the DoI that mentioned slavery. Would you quote it for me?

 

[prometeus]

I don't recal the part of the DoI that mentioned slavery. Would you quote it for me?

Naw, not worth it, you probably will not understand anyway...

 

[Felicity]

Naw, not worth it, you probably will not understand anyway...

Like you don't understand the "self-evident" part?

 

[prometeus]

I am afraid it is you who does not understand that. If it was "self evident" how come slaves did not have it but now do, or women, or children?

 

[Felicity]

I am afraid it is you who does not understand that. If it was "self evident" how come slaves did not have it but now do, or women, or children?

Just because the writers failed to "fully" appreciate the truth of what they wrote, does not mitigate the truth of their words. Obviously we've developed in our understanding of what is true, though the truth remains immutable. It was true then, that all men are created equal, as it is true today. Likewise, it was true then that the right to life is immutable though our understanding of it today (as evidenced by the barbaric act of homicide being tolerated as long as the victim is hidden in the womb) remains flawed.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

People do die, this is true. But while we exist we have the right not to have our life prematurely snuffed out by another. While there are accidents, and all sorts of ways to die; no one has the right to purposefully take the life of another human without just cause (i.e. your own life being threatened).

And considering that "just cause" is an entirely subjective matter-- prone to the whims of the legislature and the judiciary-- what you've said here is all very high-minded and noble sounding but it doesn't mean anything.

You use as an example "your own life being threatened", but that is not the only circumstance in which one person may legally take another's life-- and not every society has held that every person has the right to kill even in those circumstances.

Rights always exist, it doesn't matter if they are upheld or acknowledged; rights being innate and inalienable can not be taken away.

In other words, the existence of rights is a moral opinion with no supporting evidence-- and thus any given human right can be argued to exist or not exist by the whims or political agenda of the person doing the arguing.

Just as, for instance, Felicity can argue that an unborn human child's right to life implies the right to commandeer its mother's reproductive, digestive, and circulatory systems, and 1069 can argue that a woman's right to life implies the right to remove and destroy any unwanted organism that either threatens or impairs any of her biological functions.

In addition to my original argument that they are a "ridiculous fiction", the inherent contradictions in this concept of "human rights" make it more difficult, if not outright impossible, to have a logical moral argument about them.

It was true then, that all men are created equal, as it is true today.

Created equal in what fashion? We are not equal in the strength and health of our bodies, nor in the capacities of our minds. No two people are alike in their moral beliefs and functioning, nor in the performance of their duties.

So how, exactly, are we equal?

 

[prometeus]

So how, exactly, are we equal?

To some people that is "self-evident."

 

[Jerry]

So does that mean we should have slaves then?

Yes, the right to life means we should have slaves so long as we water board them routeenly :roll:

 

[Jerry]

I am afraid it is you who does not understand that. If it was "self evident" how come slaves did not have it but now do, or women, or children?

The writers admited that even the constitution was not perfect, which is why one of it's core purposes was "to form a more perfect union".

Granting slaves and women equal rights is part of becoming a more perfect union. Gay marriage advocets argue that establishing gay rights is part of becoming a more perfect union.

Ahead of their time the founders were, but falable men they were also.

 

[Jerry]

So how, exactly, are we equal?

According to the Natural Law the founders subscribed to, we are all equal because we are all created in the immage of God.

One's personal beliefs do not alter the form or state of one's being, so rather or not one subscribes to the Natural Law premis is irrelivent. You are what you are and have every right as the next person.

 

[prometeus]

Yes, the right to life means we should have slaves so long as we water board them routeenly :roll:

So that is what we have at Gitmo?

 

[prometeus]

According to the Natural Law the founders subscribed to, we are all equal because we are all created in the immage of God.

One's personal beliefs do not alter the form or state of one's being, so rather or not one subscribes to the Natural Law premis is irrelivent. You are what you are and have every right as the next person.

OK, but no one abides by natural laws, we abide by written laws that reflect the needs of society. Even the founders saw fit to lay on paper the laws by which the new nation was to be governed. They did not say: "OK, we are independent, lets just abide by the natural laws, because they are the best."
After all natural laws include the survival of the fittest at the expense of the weak. Clearly not something the founding fathers wanted to establish.

 

[prometeus]

The writers admited that even the constitution was not perfect, which is why one of it's core purposes was "to form a more perfect union".

Granting slaves and women equal rights is part of becoming a more perfect union. Gay marriage advocets argue that establishing gay rights is part of becoming a more perfect union.

Ahead of their time the founders were, but falable men they were also.

Not perfect? How far of does one have to be before being called outside of the ball park. How blatantly can one disregard what one believes and still be hailed as wise? So in light of all the self-evident rights the Creator endowed us all with, they remained OK with what I mentioned , and decided that for that great goal it was worth going to war and have a lot of people killed, because that is what inalienable right to life is?

 

[Jerry]

OK, but no one abides by natural laws, we abide by written laws that reflect the needs of society. Even the founders saw fit to lay on paper the laws by which the new nation was to be governed. They did not say: "OK, we are independent, lets just abide by the natural laws, because they are the best."
After all natural laws include the survival of the fittest at the expense of the weak. Clearly not something the founding fathers wanted to establish.

The entire body of Human Rights stands on the premis that humans inherantly posess verious rights by virtue of their existance. This was the basis of the anti slavory argument, which, BTW, is well founded in the DoI.

Your Human Rights do not need to be written down in order to exist.

You're Civil Rights do, but your Human Rights do not.

 

[Jerry]

Not perfect? How far of does one have to be before being called outside of the ball park. How blatantly can one disregard what one believes and still be hailed as wise? So in light of all the self-evident rights the Creator endowed us all with, they remained OK with what I mentioned , and decided that for that great goal it was worth going to war and have a lot of people killed, because that is what inalienable right to life is?

Pointing out their flaws ony further evidences their wisdom in providing us, their decendants, with the tools to correct what they got wrong.

 

[prometeus]

The entire body of Human Rights stands on the premis that humans inherantly posess verious rights by virtue of their existance. This was the basis of the anti slavory argument, which, BTW, is well founded in the DoI.

Your Human Rights do not need to be written down in order to exist.

You're Civil Rights do, but your Human Rights do not.

Since the entire notion of rights IS a human construct, a societal convention, to have any meaning and enforceability have alway been and are written. From the Cyrus cylinder to the Magna Carta to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are all written.

 

[winston53660]

The entire body of Human Rights stands on the premis that humans inherantly posess verious rights by virtue of their existance. This was the basis of the anti slavory argument, which, BTW, is well founded in the DoI.

Your Human Rights do not need to be written down in order to exist.

You're Civil Rights do, but your Human Rights do not.

Ya know you are almost convincing evidence to make English a national language here in the grand ole' USA.

"slavory"

LOL @ you.

 

[1069]

Ya know you are almost convincing evidence to make English a national language here in the grand ole' USA.

"slavory"

LOL @ you.

Oh, man... that's nothing.
It gets worse. Much, much worse.

:mrgreen:

 

[cherokee]

Yes, the right to life means we should have slaves so long as we water board them routeenly :roll:

:rofl.....

 

[Jerry]

Since the entire notion of rights IS a human construct, a societal convention, to have any meaning and enforceability have alway been and are written. From the Cyrus cylinder to the Magna Carta to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are all written.

They existed to be writen down, yes, but they did not have to be writen down to exist.