Sally ([info]soulchanger) wrote,
@ 2008-05-02 12:34:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
The "Right" to Life
Here's another phrase that I think has been horribly misused. What does it mean for something to be a right? Well, if I say that I have the right to free speech, it means that the government cannot stop me from saying things. It doesn't mean that a private entity cannot stop me from saying things. For instance, if I worked for a prestigious educational institution and I got up at a podium and said that women can't do math or science because their brains are made out of peanut butter fudge, that institution could (and should) fire me. This is not a violation of my freedom of speech - I have the right to say whatever I want, but universities have the right not to employ me if I do. In fact, any corporation or association or club could have rules for employees or members banning those people from saying certain things, and that would still not be a violation of the right to free speech, as long as we are talking about voluntary associations. It also doesn't mean that others are obliged to provide for my speech in some way. For instance, if I want to get on the news and tell everyone that I like to eat lemon poppy seed muffins for breakfast and the news people won't let me, they are not violating my freedom of speech. If I post an obnoxious comment on a blog and the blogger deletes it they are also not violating my right to free speech.

As a libertarian I would argue that a right on my part never constitutes an obligation on the part of society. Rights are things to protect us from governmental abuse.

And that's where we come to this "right to life" stuff. The right to life, as written in the Declaration of Independence, and in Locke, and others, should be taken to mean that the government cannot take away someone's life. It doesn't mean that there can't be a club that only admits dead people (an absurd argument included only for the sake of parallelism.) More substantially, it doesn't mean that private entities cannot take away one's life. The right to life is not the same as a law against murder. Murder prohibitions are provided by criminal statutes at the state level, not by the Constitution and certainly not by the D of I. These statutes provide specific instances of when taking a life is or is not murder, and if so then to what degree. For instance, I could kill someone who breaks into my house, or who assaults me physically, without violating their rights. Some would argue that euthanasia or assisted suicide is not murder. Some would argue that dueling is not murder. The point is, if I kill someone who has asked me to kill them, or agreed to fight me to the death, am I violating their rights? Finally, it doesn't mean that others are obliged to provide for my life in some way. Bakers are not obliged to bake me lemon poppy seed muffins for breakfast. Generally speaking I would have to pay someone to do that. It sucks if people starve to death but do we say that their right to life has been violated? How, and by whom?

It's important I think to note that it is a different argument if we're going to say that there's a moral obligation to keep people alive. Healing the sick and feeding the hungry are important social causes, and are addressed by a variety of social organizations (churches, charities, etc). Whether or not governments ought to be involved is an argument that we could have, but we all sort of know where each other stands on it. Since no one is taking anyone else to court arguing that they are violating the rights of starving people by not feeding them, however, I think we can agree that as rights are generally understood, the right to life does not include the right to be provided for.

So what does it mean for a fetus to have a right to life? Simply that the government may not arbitrarily deprive the fetus of life. So, for instance, let's say the government decided that in order to effect population control, all women were restricted to having one child, and all subsequent pregnancies must be terminated. This law (which is not too far-fetched, given what is going on in China) would be a violation of the right to life of any aborted fetus. An individual woman choosing to get an abortion is not a violation of the right to life of the fetus. Women have no obligation to provide support for this individual. Is it murder? Again, I can kill someone who invades my property or threatens my physical well-being. A woman's body must be considered her property and therefore the fetus is either a part of that property, which could be removed, like tonsils or an appendix; or it must be considered another individual, in which case it is invading another's property and endangering her well-being. Either way, an abortion cannot be considered a rights violation - that is, unless you want to consider all those other examples (letting poor people starve, killing home invaders, etc) rights violations as well. And the conservatives who promote gun rights and oppose welfare programs are certainly unwilling to concede that point.

Yes, fighting abortion on moral grounds is important for some people, and I respect their opinion. Abortion can be an ugly, terrible thing, and it would be better if we could all do without it. However, trying to make it about the rights of the fetus is ridiculous. I would go so far as to say that it is disingenuous, but I suspect that most conservatives don't even notice the contradictions inherent in their positions. By prohibiting abortion, we would be placing a burden on the woman to carry the child to term, and then on
someone - the woman, her family, a foster family, or a state-funded orphanage, but in other words, on society - to take care of the child. To provide for it. But providing for other people's lives is something conservatives don't want to have to do. Apparently, neither is thinking things through to their logical conclusions.

For those honestly concerned about the right to life, though - the death penalty is a great example of the government violating that fundamental right. War - probably another good example.

And any libertarian - including Ron Paul - who thinks that abortion is a violation of the right to life, is an idiot. I hereby banish them from the libertarian movement.

(Post a new comment)


[info]marcmagus
2008-05-02 06:14 pm UTC (link)
*applause*

Would you suggest, however, that the DoI is intended to be read as condemning the death penalty in all cases? I'm somewhat dubious that it's appropriate to take even "life" and "liberty" to their logical extremes and suggest that as the intent behind the wording. I'd rather suspect that in terms of punishment of criminals the extent of limiting those rights should be appropriate to the crime, and that those rights should not be denied to law-abiding citizens.

(Any use of imperative above should be read from a perspective of framer's intent, not as my belief of how we should govern ourselves today, which may or may not differ.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]soulchanger
2008-05-02 06:43 pm UTC (link)
It's funny you should ask. A few weeks back I was talking about due process - two friends were debating whether due process was a protection against arbitrary government action or a gateway to oppression. The relevant passage is in the 5th amendment: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Now clearly the framers meant that people could be deprived of life, liberty, or property, as long as such depriving took place with due process - a phrase that is reasonably ambiguous. So I would hesitate to claim that anyone intended the death penalty to be condemned when crafting these passages.

However, it's funny to take stock of which "rights," in practice, the government actually takes away, and which it does not. Liberty and property are habitually taken away as punishment for crimes, and life occasionally. The right to vote is taken away from felons. First amendment rights, however, are never taken away. We would never say to someone, "well, you've robbed a bank, and as punishment, you may no longer petition the government for grievances," or, "now that you've been convicted of murder, you will have to become a Presbyterian." We also don't have to quarter troops, so the third amendment's still in full force, as is the seventh. The second is adulterated everywhere, and the fourth, sixth, and eighth seem to be in increasing amounts of danger these days. The thing about questions of intent is that you have to wonder if the framers intended for some of our rights to be taken seriously and others to be disregarded almost immediately and others to erode over time. I expect the answer is "yes," which is why I try not to appeal to the authority of the Constitution when making arguments about the way things ought to be.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]a4yroldfaerie
2008-05-02 06:48 pm UTC (link)
Whether or not governments ought to be involved is an argument that we could have, but we all sort of know where each other stands on it

The only place I really disagree with you. Otheriwse I think this is a well-made argument etc.

But I don't even know for sure where I stand on that. Somewhere between "the purpose of the state is to protect and care for its citizens" and "leave me be"-Which really, all stances I ever have are come to think of it.

(Reply to this)

[info]celebdu
2008-05-02 07:17 pm UTC (link)
Two things that struck me while reading this:

1. It seems to me like you're placing 'rights' in some special area. A right is just whatever society decides to give you. Albeit, I strongly support society providing certain rights based on my moral view of the world, but it's not like they come from some place outside of society. Unless you're going to choose to live not in a society, of course. Like hunting and gathering. ;-)

2. You're defining the right to free speech to pertain only to government actions. That also happens to be the meaning re: our 1st amendment. But I disagree with your implication that free speech inherently applies only to government interference. Certainly one could define free speech in reference to the market just as easily. And the following comment doesn't particularly apply to your post... just to discussions about free speech in general. It really bugs me when people imply that only government interference matters. Regardless of the limited scope of the 1st amendment right, it is very apparent that the market exercises a great deal of speech-limiting power... which is not to say that companies shouldn't be able to make their own decisions. They should. But, by the same token, they can be accused of censorship - particularly things like the tv media.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]celebdu
2008-05-02 07:51 pm UTC (link)
btw i know you're going to say that government takes away rights rather than providing rights, but i stand by my point that the rights you're allowed just depend on what society decides to allow.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]soulchanger
2008-05-02 08:51 pm UTC (link)
Society cannot, strictly speaking, decide anything. This confusion of agency pervades collectivist thinking and ultimately is the source of power by which we are oppressed. You seem to suggest that a group of benevolent people got together and decided what would rights would be best, and then they gave us these rights, giftwrapped, with a bow. This is not the way that legal rights are acquired. In reality, what happens is that some people decide that their lives would be better if they could be guaranteed some right or another, and they get together and one way or another convince those in power to give it to them. The American Revolution was a great example of this, in which we convinced Great Britain to give us the right to self-government, through the persuasive force of arms. The Civil Rights movement is another such example, albeit a more peaceful one. Neither of these changes in the status of rights could be accurately described as society changing its mind. Society did not decide that blacks couldn't vote and then one day decide that blacks could vote, as a gift from society to the Negro race, and then later decide that Negro was no longer the appropriate term, etc. These changes took place as the result of struggles, and the struggles were informed by something more than a wish for a greater gift from society. They were informed by an idea that every human does have certain rights and for any authority to deny these rights is not just inconvenient, but actionable and grounds for revolution - peaceful if possible, violent if necessary.

That's not really the point, though. The point is, how do we determine which things are rights and which things are not rights? In other words, if poor people win the "right" to have their medical bills paid, is this really a "right" just because the democratically elected plurality says it is? Certainly the government can guarantee us certain rights - but the government can also guarantee us certain things that are not rights. The government can, for instance, guarantee a fetus the "right" to be carried to term. Does this actually mean that every fetus has the right to be carried to term - or is the government using the term "right" incorrectly? That is the question that I am trying to address. The system by which rights are protected or not protected is fairly mundane and straightforward - either the law protects our rights or it doesn't - and the process by which rights gain protection is also abundantly clear from history. The philosophical question that is not easily resolved by hearkening back to American History class is the question that I started with: What does it mean for something to be a right?

As to your definition - well, it is unsatisfactory, and here's why. Do you have a right to do everything you are allowed to do? Men are regularly allowed to rape women, and society lets them get away with it, by which I mean, the sum of social mechanisms in many areas is such that rape is not discouraged or punished (and may actually be encouraged). Men can legally get away with raping their spouses. Due to the way our laws are structured and the attitudes and/or ignorance of our officials, appalling percentages of rapes are not properly investigated and/or not punished. In addition, punishments for rapes are ludicrously lax. Does this mean that society has "decided" to give men the "right" to rape women? Women make 75 cents on the dollar compared to men's salaries in comparable positions. Society does nothing. Does this mean that employers have the "right" to discriminate against women? Marital rape is, generally speaking, legal, whereas other rapes, and discrimination, are illegal. If society passed laws banning rape and discrimination, but society allows these things to continue anyway, then are they rights or not? And on the other end, do women have the right not to be raped? Do they forfeit that right upon marriage? Do they have a right not to be discriminated against?

A definition of rights based on what "society decides to give you" doesn't seem to cohere with any existing system of law or morality. And if rights are not based on some doctrine of law or morality, but simply on circumstance, then the very idea of rights means nothing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]celebdu
2008-05-03 03:01 am UTC (link)
I completely agree with you about societal changes coming from the demands of the people who make up the society. i apologize for using the word 'society' misleadingly... it's a bad shortcut. but you make exactly the point i was trying to make. that rights come from the people demanding them. although from my moral point of view there are obviously some rights I think should be givens, I don't buy that there are any rights that just naturally come from some outside source. When I say that society decides the rights, I mean that the people who make up the society demand a whole bunch of different rights, and sometimes convince governments to guarantee to lesser or greater extents certain rights. and obviously just because people are able to get away with certain things or parts of society even condone those things doesn't mean that the government "provided" that right. that's a totally different issue that has nothing to do with rights provided by society.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]soulchanger
2008-05-02 08:56 pm UTC (link)
2. Again, here's where the definition of a right becomes important. By your definition, a right is just what society decides to give you. Society hasn't decided to give people the right to freely express their views on public media - therefore, people don't have that right. People don't have a right to have their personal views distributed by private entities, because society hasn't bothered to give them that right. Therefore, by your own definition, censorship by private companies is not a violation of a person's right to free speech.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]celebdu
2008-05-03 03:06 am UTC (link)
no of course society or government doesn't provide you the right to get across your personal views through private entities. but just like people claim certain rights all the time of their government (some of which the government actually claims to grant and some of which they don't), also people demand certain things from corporations. so when corporations exercise power over a point of control, they have the power to effectively limit freedom of speech. in practice, i'm talking about. (i'm not arguing that corporations do necessarily have power today over such a point of control; it's just an example.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]cyber_pilgrim
2008-05-04 10:46 pm UTC (link)
I'd like to add that the gay rights movement is a perfect example of how groups have lobbied to to change the rules.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]nyuanshin
2008-05-02 09:19 pm UTC (link)
"Rights are things to protect us from governmental abuse."

I submit that you have spent far too long talking to libertarians, because this is an incredibly narrow reading of a word that agrees with neither its use by legal scholars nor laymen.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]soulchanger
2008-05-02 10:09 pm UTC (link)
Well, if the point is to make a libertarian argument against the "right-to-life" anti-abortion slogan (which indeed it was) I submit that using libertarian understandings of the terms involved makes a certain amount of sense. And there certainly is a long history of scholarship in libertarian thought that discusses the exact nature of rights, as well as what is and is not to be considered a right, and there is a long history of disagreement with the mainstream.

Ever since the Ron Paul disaster there have been anti-abortion libertarians crawling out of the woodwork, and I'd like to see them crawl back in, and that's sort of the point I'm making here.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nyuanshin
2008-05-02 10:16 pm UTC (link)
Not even most libertarians would (or ought) agree with that definition, though, since it implies that someone who mugs me is in no way violating my rights.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]soulchanger
2008-05-02 10:35 pm UTC (link)
You know what - you're right. That statement is of dubious merit, and does not really enhance the argument that I am making. I think I'll take it out.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]soulchanger
2008-05-02 10:44 pm UTC (link)
On second thought, perhaps I should amend it to refer only to Constitutional rights?

Is a prohibition against mugging based on a person's right not to be mugged? That's a question for legal philosophy. I don't think everyone agrees that all laws exist to protect people's rights. Rather, one could argue that laws exist to facilitate cooperation, to govern society, provide order, or enforce morality, or increase the total utility...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]nyuanshin
2008-05-03 12:13 am UTC (link)
Here's an everyday example of a rights issue where government doesn't directly enter the picture at all: when you're a patient in the ICU of a hospital, the doctors have a presumptive right to do things to you like shove a tube down your throat and inject you with things (unless you've explicitly stated that this was against your wishes), which would not exist in a non-medical context. If you sign a DNR on the other hand, they nolonger have such a right.

Now, how do you succinctly describe this situation without reference to rights? You can say they're legally allowed/disallowed, but this amounts to the same thing. Rights are conventions governing who is allowed to do what in a given situation. (If you think this is too broad since it could be read to include the rules of bridge, you can insert "legal" before "conventions".) *Why* we have rights is a philosophical question, but so far as the *what* goes a prohibition against mugging pretty clearly falls under this definition.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]nyuanshin
2008-05-03 12:26 am UTC (link)
BTW, here's how I would make the point you're making in a nutshell: unless we're willing to say that someone has a right to demand expensive medical treatment (without paying for it) if they have a life-threatening injury or illness, then there is no unconditional "right to life", and no libertarian ought to go around talking as though there is, lest their heads explode. If someone wants to make a case that a fetus has a presumptive right not to be aborted, then they have to introduce some auxiliary assumptions that are outside the realm of libertarianism proper -- and pretty darn strong assumptions at that, since it prima facie interferes with the mother's autonomy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]aiglet
2008-05-03 02:18 pm UTC (link)
Here's a question -- at what point does one become entitled to *have* rights in the first place?

Philosophically, I'm pretty much a social contract-ist, which means that I think that people basically have the "right" to do anything (yes, rape, murder, etc.) and that they *give up* some of those rights to the government (by allowing it to pass laws restricting them) in order to receive government services (protection by police, the army, schooling, fill-in-your-own-blank). So for me, "rights" covers the scope of "things you can do legally." (Let's avoid the whole question of "what happens when the laws restrict rights in a way that doesn't make sense," please.)

In my view, therefore, in order to have rights, you have to *be a citizen*. All living Americans have, by default, agreed to the USian social contract, which is mostly embodied in the Constitution (all the rest is commentary). (In this model, criminals have chosen to opt-out of the contract, although I'd except illegal immigrants, since I think it's idiotic to say that someone has "illegally" chosen our contract over someone else's..) But does a fetus or an embryo (since most abortions are performed before the dividing line for one nomenclature over another) have the ability to consent or refuse the contract? Not so much. If you can't be part of the contract, you don't have *any* rights as far as I'm concerned.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]soulchanger
2008-05-04 02:12 am UTC (link)
I think that social contract theory is faulty, in the same way that the geocentric model of the solar system is faulty. It's not that you can't look at the solar system as though the sun and planets revolve around the earth and, in doing so, take accurate measurements. People used it to navigate, successfully, for over a thousand years. The real problem with the geocentric model was that it was just a model, and didn't represent the actual way that things happened, in terms of causality, and as a result, unexpected things would pop up every once in a while that needed to be explained and excepted and taken into account.

The same is true of social contract. On the surface, it seems like a fairly accurate metaphor for what's going on in society. But really, there is no contract - as in, there is no document called "The Social Contract," and people are not given any such document when they are born, or naturalized, in the United States. No one ever explicitly agrees with anyone else that they will cede their personal sovereignty to that person in exchange for certain services or protections.

As much as you can say "well, look at it as though you were ceding some rights to the government in exchange for some services," this is similar to a geocentric view, in that it imagines that the Sun - the sovereign, that is - revolves around the Earth - that is, the individual. It is much more accurate, however, to note that the sovereign has a much greater power over the individual than the individual has over the sovereign - just as the Sun exercises more influence over the path of the Earth than the Earth does over the path of the Sun.

Also, like the geocentric model, social contract theory requires a lot of caveats and adjustments in order to match the observed realities. For instance, we have to assume that immigrants have opted into the social contract even as they have opted out by breaking the law that forbids them from being in America in the first place. Children cannot make informed consent, but their parents or guardians can consent for them, and in any case children who break the contract are punished much less than adults who break the contract. Criminals have opted out of the contract but they still go to jail, which means that they haven't actually gotten out of anything. Does an infant of one year of age have an ability to consent to or refuse the contract? No - does that mean that anyone can kill a one-year-old infant without penalty? Or just its parents? Or just its mother? At what point can a human be considered to have consented to the contract?

Ultimately, resorting to social contract theory raises more questions than it answers, and so I don't think it's a good way to resolve hard problems about what the government should or should not forbid. Moreover, if people *give up* some of their rights to the government, what's to stop the government from simply declaring that one of the rights the people have given up is the right to choose? That is the problem with a contract that one party has the right to arbitrarily change at any time without notice. By living in a country that bans or restricts abortion, one could argue, women voluntarily give up the right to choose. How would a contract theorist answer that argument?

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Right to Life
[info]cyber_pilgrim
2008-05-04 10:27 pm UTC (link)
You do a fine job of intellectualizing this subject, but from my point of view there are holes in your thesis. As a Christian your handle sounded interesting, and I was curious what you wrote about this issue. I took the time to ponder what you wrote, I hope you'll take the time to ponder my response.

The first thing that comes to mind when anyone hears the phrase, 'The Right to Life' is the abortion issue, so lets tackle this subject first; you make some interesting points, which I will get to later.

Common sense used as a guide would dictate that protection be used if someone didn't want to get pregnant. It is irresponsible for anyone to think that abortion is the answer to birth control.
When an egg is fertilized it is the beginning of new life, which cannot protect itself; the safety of the womb is the babies only protection until it comes full term, and is delivered. That fetus has a right to life. Only a selfish person, not will to accept the consequences of their actions takes the stance, 'It's my body.'

Now you might argue that there are exceptions; like what if conception is the result of rape? Certainly that would not be any easy situation, but that child could turn out to be a blessing. How could that be? Well if Mary lived in our day, people would certainly question an immaculate conception; if she were tempted, or shamed into an abortion where would we be. Not that every illigitimate child will be a world changer, but he/she has life and deserves a chance to live out his/her destiny; it is that childs right to live. It is a moral issue; only an amoral person would disagree.

What does free speech have to do with the 'Right to Life'? I guess I agree somewhat on this point though, as the whole 'politically correct' stance is being used to gag moral protest by calling it hate, and some people are deprived of their freedom of speech as a consequence. Posting something objectional (insulting, nasty, or hateful) on someones blog is something else. In the rules for using the service we agree not to do such things when we agree to the terms of use, but there are many who don't like to live by rules. If there were not some rules in society life would be a chaotic anarchy, which it's well on it way to becomming in life today.

Those who kill someone in defence of their own life do not deserve to die, but those who plan to take someone elses life does. As for the results of war, well that's a whole new debate.

As for the rights of starving people: I've seen footage of black soldiers stealing the food sent to feed the starving poor. I don't recall the country, but the point is when food is stolen from the poor it's wrong. It is taking away their chance at life. It is of little help to debate this issue, what is needed is compassion from those who can do something to help; not eveyone can.

Lastly for those who want to die. It's not easy to go on in a mood of hopelessness, but who knows, someones choice to die may be depriving a loved one of their destiny to care for them.

(Reply to this)(Thread)
Re: Right to Life
[info]agiel
2008-05-04 11:34 pm UTC (link)
Wrong.

(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: Right to Life
[info]soulchanger
2008-05-05 01:41 pm UTC (link)
"only an amoral person would disagree."

If we're really going to talk about rights, I might start by pointing out that only God has the right to judge a person's soul. Jesus reached out to everyone - the sick, the poor, and, most especially, the sinners, because they were the ones who most needed his help. Everyone sins. Everyone. We are not God, and it is not our place to decide which sins are okay and which are not okay, or to judge others who sin. You might say that only an amoral person would have an abortion, but how do you know? You can't look into her soul and see what is there.

That being said, my goal is not to justify immoral or amoral behavior, but rather to address the abortion issue in political terms.

When Jesus' followers complained to him about the taxes they had to pay, Jesus made them look at their coins. They saw the face of Caesar stamped on them, and Jesus admonished them to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto the Lord what is the Lord's. The point is that the realm of the political and economic are separate from the realm of the spiritual. Jesus did not tell his followers to try to reform the Roman government, or to demand that other Roman subjects in far off places give up their pagan gods and conform to God's law. Jesus also said that before you try to remove the speck in your neighbor's eye, you should first address the problem of the log in your own.

So it seems pretty clear to me based on my Christian upbringing that it is explicitly not the job of Christians to make sin a crime, to seek out sin, to punish sin. Instead, it is the job of Christians to look after their own souls, first and foremost, to make sure that they themselves are pure and free of sin, and in doing so to spread the Good News by providing a positive example to others.

Can an unexpected - even an unwanted - child be a blessing? Sure it can - but show us. Show us children raised by a loving family and community, children who honor God and country, who contribute positively to the community. Because what we see now is children who are ignored, and neglected, and never shown the love of family, or community, or Jesus.

The way to fight abortion, and sin in general, is not to appeal to earthly authorities, and I question the faith of anyone who chooses this path rather than simply following the instructions that Jesus came to Earth to give to us.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]seussian_logic
2008-05-05 03:15 am UTC (link)
A very well thought-out and interesting read. Well done.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]soulchanger
2008-05-05 11:14 am UTC (link)
Thanks!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]devilscarpet
2008-05-05 04:58 am UTC (link)
Quite interesting. I've never really thought about it in that sense.

(Reply to this)

[info]cathiis
2008-05-05 10:45 am UTC (link)
As a libertarian I would argue that a right on my part never constitutes an obligation on the part of society. Rights are things to protect us from governmental abuse.

Well that may be so with in the USA, I don't know I don't live there, but in other parts of the world, including Australia a right is only bestowed upon those that bare the responsibility of that right for someone else. For example the right to life depends on your responsibilty to defend someone else's right to life, That is unles you want to be murdered don't murder anyone else. Do unto others as they would do unto you (one of the few teachings of the bible that I contend is correct.)

For every right there is a responsibility. Without that responsibility there is no right. Liberty is regularly removed from people that remove liberty from others. We jail rapists, kidnappers etc. People don't have the right to liberty, they have the reponsibility to not infringe upon others liberty. Fail to live up to that reponsibility and you should expect others to remove your liberty.

What is more, rights change over time according to societal views and understandings. As a classic case in point I hold up the 2nd ammendment to the US consitution. Nobody has a right to bare arms in a civilized society by today's standards. When the 2nd ammendment was written it was important for the protection of such a vast country that people should have a weapon. It was intended to protect the state, not as a lot of people say, to protect people from the state. In other words the right to bare arms was tempered with the reponsibility to use them in protection of the country should it be necessary within a 'well organised militia', in much the same way that in England it was a freedom (not a right) to own a bow and learn archery should it become necessary to use such a skill in times of war. These days you don't see many people in England carrying a bow and arguing for their right to own one.

As for abortion, it is not a right to life issue, and on that I will agree with you, however your argument I will not agree with. Pregnancy is not rights based, it is reponsibility based and should a woman feel that she is not capable of living up to the responsibility of carrying that child for 9 months, and even for that matter the reponsibility of raising that child, feeding it, clothing it and loving it for the rest of its life, then abortion should be permissible.

I am not a fan of the American way of thinking that 'individual=rights'. That I am afraid is why so many people outide your borders have such a low opinion of Americans as a whole. Individuals have _no_ rights, they have responsibilities.

Ergo 'rights=responsibilities'. Just an outsiders perspective.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…