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: Oeconomicus who wrote (20534)	6/20/2005 12:58:43 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"One must be "separated and individual" to have rights, therefore if one is not "separated and individual", one does not have rights." Let me put the argument in syllogistic form so that you can stop yourself from truncating it and avoiding the premises: 1). The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are considered axiomatic in western society. 2). These rights are rights of the individual--not of groups. 3). These rights may not conflict because by definition they are Absolute rights--SPECIFICALLY limited to any point where they would intrude, interfere, or otherwise violate such rights in other individuals. 4). An unborn (whether it be at zygote, blastocyst, or other stage of development) is NOT an individual and was not contemplated as such by Paine or the Founding Fathers--nor any others whom formed the genesis of the concept of inalienable human rights. 5). Were society to consider an egg as an individual--it would make it impossible to avoid the necessary lack of actual conflict (which premise three elucidates). To expand on premise 5: Whereas, in society, actions between and among individuals may be mediated so that when one attempts to ignore or violate the rights of another, the courts may interpret who is in violation of these "INALIENABLE" rights and may act to provide relief, in the instance of an attached egg (or any other stage of the unborn) there would be ACTUAL conflict of these inalienable rights because by definition an individual does not and may not have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if they are forced to pursue the life, liberty, and happiness of another individual. Just as if you chain yourself to me and society says I may not unchain you...my pursuit of happiness is immediately violated. If I am forced to nourish you and to live my life so that you will be happy and so forth, then the situation becomes even more strained and absurd. Rather than a free human with rights, I am become a slave--a mutual parasite if you prefer--with all my rights violated. 6). Rights are contemplated as belonging to individuals--separate and apart. 7). If an egg is considered to have rights, then it must be considered to be an individual. 8). Aside from the fact that it is NOT an individual, if society were gratuitously to decree that it IS an individual--there still remains the mathematical obstacle that two does NOT equate to one. Two individuals are NOT one individual. 9). Therefore, even if society invents the big contradictory lie that the egg is an individual--separate and apart and having inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--it cannot guarantee these rights to both the mother and the egg but must violate them for one or both. "Your right to individual "liberty" or simply to "life" sustaining food conflicts with my property rights in that food" No. That is incorrect. I have no right to your food regardless that it is "life" sustaining as you put it! That is why we call it stealing and why we punish it! And you have no right to kill me (whether it is for "life" sustaining purposes or not). That is why we call it murder and punish it. You DO NOT have a right to violate these inalienable rights. If we have a personal conflict over food or property it is because one of us has violated the principle and require to be punished or restrained. People may be in conflict. Rights (by definition) are not. ALL people have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--NOT just people of a certain color, race, or religion(and I am well aware you did not suggest you believed this; I am explaining my point). BTW...I notice from the comment that you consider yourself to have a right to the security of your own body! Would you still believe that if you were a pregnant woman? "Same thing" Not even remotely the same. "The law must simply weigh the rights and determine whose rights have precedence in a given situation." As explained--only individuals have inalienable rights and the courts exist to safeguard those rights from violation--NOT to diminish them in any way. From Websters: INALIENABLE: "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred The Courts are there to insure that rights are indeed NOT alienated, surrendered, or transferred. "The trick is to get people to consider it all rationally and reasonably" Really?! You must believe that rational people can reach rational agreement! We certainly agree on some things, then?