Quote:
|
All you need is the means and opportunity. Nothing stopping you at all.
|
Once again, you are dodging my question. I'm not asking you if there is anything to stop me from murdering you, I'm asking you, if there is no right to life, inherent or legal, then there is no logical reason why I shouldn't murder you, or is there? Is there any good reason for me to respect your life if you don't possess a right to preserve it?
Quote:
|
So we're just talking about US citizens, then?
|
Not specifically. The US Constitution affords non-citizens rights as well. You can't simply murder someone because they are an illegal immigrant. We're refering to people who fall under the legislative authority of the United States Government.
Quote:
|
They're not persons, PERIOD.
|
That is your opinion.
You know what I meant. Let me be more specific then, human law does not apply to non-humans.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Your views are based on exclusion. Exclusion of those who don't meet your agenda-driven definition of a person. Excluding non-humans from human law is not being arbitrarily exclusive.
Quote:
|
If you're talking about legal rights afforded by our governing body, they can and have changed at will.
|
So what? That doesn't change the fact that those rights are recognized by law and generally considered to be at the core of American ideology. You make no sense.
Quote:
|
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.
|
How did I know you would quibble over the term "all men"? It's meaning is analogous to humanity, anyone who has a highschool education knows this. And once again, the fact that those demographics had their rights violated doesn't change the fact they still possessed them. You're being obtuse.
Quote:
|
I really wouldn't use them as examples of people who believed in "equal rights" for all. Because they didn't.
|
So, anytime someone espouses a good and reasonable ideology it is immediately null and void once those who espouse it have violated said principles? The ideology of equality and rights shouldn't suffer from the sins of its progenetors.
Quote:
|
However, we - citizens of the US - have changed our interpretation of their statements and become more inclusive with our civil rights.
|
The Declaration of Independence has not changed one iota, nor have our interpretation of its words. The only thing that has changed is our interpretation of the Founding Father's practice of those ideals, which, in retrospect, was immoral by modern standards.
Quote:
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.
|
The rights afforded by the Constitution apply to anyone who falls under the legislative authority of the US government.