Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (20532)	6/19/2005 11:08:37 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"I thought you would understand the unstated premises. You cannot have inalienable rights until you are separated and individual." I understand very well. The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premise. One must be "separated and individual" to have rights, therefore if one is not "separated and individual", one does not have rights. Petitio principii. "Now, if I eat steal [sic] your food every night is there a conflict of rights? NO. If you beat me up every night is there a conflict of rights? NO." Wrong. Your right to individual "liberty" or simply to "life" sustaining food conflicts with my property rights in that food or in the security of my own body. Conflicting rights. "When these "conflicts" occur it is because one individual or another has trampled on or denied the rights of another--NOT because the rights are conflicting." Same thing. "Firstly, you will hopefully learn some day that flippancy is not an argument." Sorry. Should have said, "It is nonsense to suggest that an unborn child can have no rights without 'aborting' the rights of the mother." The law must simply weigh the rights and determine whose rights have precedence in a given situation. For example, society might reasonably decide that no woman should be forced to take undue risk to her life by giving birth unless by her own choice. OTOH, it might also decide that, provided the pregnancy was the result of her own voluntary behavior, the unborn's right to life outweighs her right to not be inconvenienced by it's existence. Further, it could decide to pick some point in the child's development, however arrived at, where it deems such a right of the unborn to exist. Society, through it's laws, is perfectly capable of deciding such things and even of weighing conflicting rights. Even, believe it or not, in a situation where an unborn child with rights can only be brought into this world at great risk to the life and health of the mother. The trick is to get people to consider it all rationally and reasonably, to consider that both mother and child can have rights and sometimes it may be necessary to weigh the one's against the other's, rather than arguing endlessly about whose absolute truth is THE truth and whose absolute position the other extremists must be forced to accept.