|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:46 pm
I'm serious when I say this, but we have no rights. Anything we do can be taken away from us at a moments notice should someone decide to do so. If aliens invade, we lose our ability to do this or that. If some terrorists take over a nuclear load and use it to destroy many cities in the world, we have no ability to do what we previously did.
The pro-choice argument is, "no one has the right to deny this person their rights..."
Now I'm asking... who the hell has the authority to even determine what "rights" are and are not? To suggest such a thing would mean that someone who is human is above the rest of us in authority, and that just isn't true.
Almost every argument stems from the Western legal system, "rights" are ours because we were "born with it."
Seriously now... these rights come at a price. Rights are a specific power, and the power means responsibility. When people don't take responsibility for their power, destructive things that can be fully prevented happen. We are being handed rights just for being born, isn't there something wrong with that? Rights are our birth right just because we live in this specific country.
But... don't rights have to be earned?
If you are given the power of rights in a western civilization, isn't it also your responsibility as a person with rights to protect the rights of others rather than just your own?
Never mind, I'm going off on a tangent.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:24 pm
FreeArsenal Now I'm asking... who the hell has the authority to even determine what "rights" are and are not? Good question. It's really all a legal thing. Rights can be granted and taken away. You can't argue about a "god-given right" without having to argue the existence of a god! The founders of the US referred to rights granted by one's "creator." Can anyone prove what rights they've been granted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:25 pm
There were alot of right we used to have but don't anymore. Like if you bought a house, you would own the land the house is on but now we don't own the land.
What I dislike about the whole "my body, my right" is that the baby isn't a part of their body like an arm or leg so your hurting someone else when aborting not yourself.
What gives people that right to take a life just cause their temperarly usuing their body?
Sure the baby didn't ask to use their body but the baby also didn't ask to be here or exist either, the mother knew that pregnancy is a possiblity.
Your right, alot of rights had to be earned or we had to work hard in the past to be able to have some of the same rights as others but some can just as easily be taken away.
I don't think they even follow the constitution anymore.
They want to take away our right to bear arms (orignally we were giving the right to have guns in order to protect ourselfs from the government in case they try to become dictatorship or something like that, I can't really remember) and we don't have full freedom of speech anymore, just limited freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:12 pm
sachiko_sohma I don't think they even follow the constitution anymore. They want to take away our right to bear arms (orignally we were giving the right to have guns in order to protect ourselfs from the government in case they try to become dictatorship or something like that, I can't really remember) and we don't have full freedom of speech anymore, just limited freedom. You're right, the constitution is outdated. I can't even say "hi" to my friend Jack at the airport. I say "HI Jack!" and I get caught by security, what's up with these people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:59 pm
FreeArsenal [quote="sachiko_sohma I don't think they even follow the constitution anymore. They want to take away our right to bear arms (orignally we were giving the right to have guns in order to protect ourselfs from the government in case they try to become dictatorship or something like that, I can't really remember) and we don't have full freedom of speech anymore, just limited freedom. You're right, the constitution is outdated. I can't even say "hi" to my friend Jack at the airport. I say "HI Jack!" and I get caught by security, what's up with these people? I've heard that one before but how many people are going to say Hi Jack?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:52 am
FreeArsenal I'm serious when I say this, but we have no rights. Anything we do can be taken away from us at a moments notice should someone decide to do so. If aliens invade, we lose our ability to do this or that. If some terrorists take over a nuclear load and use it to destroy many cities in the world, we have no ability to do what we previously did. The pro-choice argument is, "no one has the right to deny this person their rights..." Now I'm asking... who the hell has the authority to even determine what "rights" are and are not? To suggest such a thing would mean that someone who is human is above the rest of us in authority, and that just isn't true. Almost every argument stems from the Western legal system, "rights" are ours because we were "born with it." Seriously now... these rights come at a price. Rights are a specific power, and the power means responsibility. When people don't take responsibility for their power, destructive things that can be fully prevented happen. We are being handed rights just for being born, isn't there something wrong with that? Rights are our birth right just because we live in this specific country. But... don't rights have to be earned? If you are given the power of rights in a western civilization, isn't it also your responsibility as a person with rights to protect the rights of others rather than just your own? Never mind, I'm going off on a tangent. I believe that countries must stay true to a consistant set of principals or else there's chaos. The US declaration of Independance reads that "All men[people] are created equal and have an inalienable RIGHT to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Once you start destroying these rights for some, you may as well tear up that declaration. And you never know who will deny your rights next.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:09 pm
elffromspace I believe that countries must stay true to a consistant set of principals or else there's chaos. The US declaration of Independance reads that "All men[people] are created equal and have an inalienable RIGHT to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Once you start destroying these rights for some, you may as well tear up that declaration. And you never know who will deny your rights next. I think there lies the main problem... because the country [the U.S.] is constantly re-interpreting the laws of rights. I mean the Bill of Rights #2, the Right to Bear arms, or the right to protect oneself... we're having all these gun control laws now for what? When times change, the Constitution changes as well, in fact I feel that the person who wrote the declaration of Independence as well as the Bill of Rights was not a very intelligent person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:28 pm
When it comes down to it, rights are subject to scrutiny by the people who don't believe that they are really "rights", but rather just something that is wanted, and not necessary. And when they're examined that closely, they get picked apart and reworked, and that's what's happened with abortion.
People have philosophized the whole issue by saying that it doesn't "feel"-- But "feel" isn't everything-- "feel" is only one of the five senses.
Life comes before everything, because without life there is nothing else, including "rights", and the ability to re-interpret those rights. It really annoys me when people claim their right to choose to abort is more important than someone else's life, because it's devaluing everything that what we experience is based on, and that's a little more than stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:07 am
McPhee When it comes down to it, rights are subject to scrutiny by the people who don't believe that they are really "rights", but rather just something that is wanted, and not necessary. And when they're examined that closely, they get picked apart and reworked, and that's what's happened with abortion.
People have philosophized the whole issue by saying that it doesn't "feel"-- But "feel" isn't everything-- "feel" is only one of the five senses.
Life comes before everything, because without life there is nothing else, including "rights", and the ability to re-interpret those rights. It really annoys me when people claim their right to choose to abort is more important than someone else's life, because it's devaluing everything that what we experience is based on, and that's a little more than stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:42 pm
There's the inalienable rights which was thought of during the Enlightenment period.
These are basic rights that should be guaranteed to everyone.
According to John Locke, these are life, liberty, and property.
However, in the Declaration of Independence, it's Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
What I don't understand is why people have such qualms about the death penalty, but then turn around and say it's okay to kill a fetus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:17 pm
Quote unquote--
"With great power comes great responsiblity."
Edit.
"With great American Rights comes great responsibility."
Good point, Mitsumi. I especially hate it when people complain that we're killing the Earth and the sweet little animals and the precious plants, and then they just flip-flop and say it's okay to kill children. That ticks me off so bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
