inalienable right?
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Uncool,
>
> Having a conversation about rights, and what has them and what
> doesn't, in no way implies that said rights are alienable /
> transferable / "assigned" / derived from the govt / synonymous
> with privileges / or granted by legislation. Not only did I not
> say anything about rights being any of those things, I did not
> imply it in any way. Your post is long-jumping to its own
> obviously-false conclusion and claiming it's mine so you can
> knock it down easily. That your post would stoop so low to make
> me into a strawman is a mind-boggler monstrosity.
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
> ************
> {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
> There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
> unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
> its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> unjust lawsuits.
> See www.fija.org
> [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
>
> -----------------------
>
>
> Then, Mark, you assume that rights are not inalienable, and thus
> handed out like a birth certificate. I reiterate my rejection of
> this thought. I can not reconcile the concept of the state owning
> my
> very being, and all my rights are dirived from the state rather
> than
> my being itself. Rights should not become a synonymn for
> privledges,
> nothing could be more dangerous to libertey.
>
> I am discussing what I am discussing and what I am discussing is
> how
> defending abortion can not be seen as the only Libertarian point
> of
> view. I am talking about human rights Mark. My discussion is not
> being directed by your desire or any one elses to only look at a
> piece of the picture and ignore the darker sides that some find
> unpleasant.
>
> My point of view of abortion extends directly from my point of
> view
> on what the difference between a right and a privledge are. #6 is
>
> supposed to be used as a legal term for contracts and
> legislation,
> not as a tool of opression but it is so easily misused by those
> who
> misconstrue its purpose, and is thus a monstrocity.
>
>
> Here is the biggest mindbogler for me. Personhood in your point
> of
> view being about who gets rights and who does not. This is
> assigned,
> it is not in stone and thus who is curently a person and who is
> not
> is irelevant to the greater question of who should be a person
> under
> your definition. Definition #1 answers that question. #6 is
> simply a
> matter of legal terminolgy. Who recieves human rights is not,
> rights
> are not granted by legislation or contract Mark. How can that be
> so
> objectionable of a thought to a 'libertarian group.'
>
> --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Uncool,
> >
> > I don't comprehend why you are explaining the nature of rights,
> > when we are discussing abortion and "human" vs "person".
> >
> > Regarding "person", Merriam Webster grants synonymy with
> "human"
> > in def # 1. But def # 6 says: "one (as a human being, a
> > partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the
> > subject of rights and duties."
> >
> > Since this discussion is about abortion (and immigration?) and
> > what life-stage qualifies for full rights, I assume #6 is more
> > appropriate here.
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
