Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethereal  That's not what I asked. If there is no right to life, as you suppose, then there's no logical reason why I can't murder you, correct? |
All you need is the means and opportunity. Nothing stopping you at all.
Quote:
|
Also, how does the fact that a right can be violated make it nonexistant? Does that mean you don't have a right to free speech because I can stuff a sock in your mouth?
|
So we're just talking about US citizens, then?
Quote:
|
A person. Now, I know what you're going to say, "the unborn are not persons under the law", hence this debate.
|
They're not persons, PERIOD.
Quote:
|
Because it is human law. Animals do not recognize laws, therefore it is not feasible that it should apply to them. However, if you feel the law should extend to animals, the samw way I feel it should extend to the unborn, then feel free to argue that point.
|
Humans ARE animals. But it's interesting that you would apply such a "law" only to humans when there are conceivably other lifeforms that should or could be included. I guess my views are more inclusive.
Quote:
|
Because the very fact that a right exists means it is subject to a possible violation. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
|
If you're talking about legal rights afforded by our governing body, they can and have changed at will.
Quote:
Obviously not. The US government derives it authority from the consent of the governed. Our nation was founded upon the principles enshrined within the Declaration of Independence which consequently reflected the sentiment of the governed, and still does.
The Founding Fathers recognized those rights as being self-evident, as such they found it necessary to afford those inherent rights legal protection in the Constitution.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. |
And the founding fathers didn't inlcude women, blacks, or other minorities in their "all men" statement. In fact, the term "all men" inherently excludes women, as intended by the founding fathers.
I really wouldn't use them as examples of people who believed in "equal rights" for all. Because they didn't.
However, we - citizens of the US - have changed our interpretation of their statements and become more inclusive with our civil rights. These are not "human rights", they're rights afforded to US citizens by our government.
The mere fact that something is human doesn't make it deserving of the rights outlined in our governing documents. There are other things that make something deserving of these rights, and it has nothing to do with biological classification.