The War On Iraq has started.

[Silent_One]

Simply saying rights come from the wrongs and so on really does not help does it. Since life is so full of wrongs (everyday something new.) one could be constantly be charging others with doing something that was a breach of my human rights.So this explanation that Silent_One offered really is not much help is it? So I ask again what are rights?

Well if you notice the Declaration declared certain truths to "be self-evident" amoung them that human beings "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". The Declaration then went from God given natural law to man made positive alw based upon social contracts "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

I'd rather God was in charge of my rights then some social activist nut bar, but that is simply my opinion

Now if these "truths" are so "self-evident" why did the British authorities and American Tories not also recognize them? How are conflicts between "self-evident" truths to be resolved? What about the rights of disbelievers, skeptics and agnostics? From whom do their rights derive from? Did God give the right to not believe in Him? If so, why do ministers say we will go to damnation for its exercise? The declaration does not answer these questions. It was a document trying to build a consensus advocating a course of action. However after read past the more quoted parts comes the catalog of wrongs - of "abuses and usurpations" - which made it the "right" of America to "institute new government" Thus the Declaration invokes both the laws of God and Nature with the founding fathers own experences with injustices (wrongs) to justify their demand for "rights".

 

[kyleb]

i have to disagree Silent_One. i do not see our rights as something that come from understanding wrongs at all, rather as truths which are evident within themselves and those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the document states it quite clearly to mean just that as i understand it. on the other hand, wrongs are simply when we infringe on the rights of others; and law is how punishment is determined.

 

[Sabastian]

I do understand the ambiguites of human rights and the problems that they (both government and judges) faced having no article or base to work from. The problem is that charter law is open to interpretation that IMO has caused just as much grief. God can be what ever you like it to be it isn't restricted to the Christian or otherwise. Quite simply God may be refered to the thing that everything comes from nothing more or less. Disbelievers, skeptic and agnostics cannot say without a doubt that there is no god and no one knows why we are here. So if they offer nothing to replace the notion of God or something equally as impressive then what is the matter really.

It was the demand for the article, I realise, that it was created but I don't believe that they are doing better with it in place then they were doing before. In fact I believe that it is the source of new problems of interpretation. The problem is that this document may cause even more problems then they had before it was in place rather then clear up matters it now makes the state responsible for the welfare of its inhabitants rather then them being responsible for their own well being. The question one should ask is that if indeed rights are a derivative of wrongs then surely the document in question is not long or articulate enough to embody such a declaration nor could it be or will it ever.

 

[V3]

Did God give the right to not believe in Him?

Its an ability, I don't know if you translate ability the same as right. If you are able, it doesn't always mean its the right thing to do.

If so, why do ministers say we will go to damnation for its exercise?

If you don't believe in God, mean you don't love God, than God will put you to damnation.

 

[Silent_One]

The question one should ask is that if indeed rights are a derivative of wrongs then surely the document in question is not long or articulate enough to embody such a declaration nor could it be or will it ever.

Is that a question? If so, could you rephrase it please.

i do not see our rights as something that come from understanding wrongs at all, rather as truths which are evident within themselves and those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Is the "Right to life" self-evident or the right of a woman to have an abortion ?
P.S. think about it. Got to go, see you tomorrow....

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

If something is right or not isn't the question. It's if you have the power to do it, will you do it?

 

[V3]

Is the "Right to life" self-evident or the right of a woman to have an abortion ?

Women doesn't have the right to an abortion.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

If something is right or not isn't the question. It's if you have the power to do it, will you do it?

V3.

 

[Sabastian]

The question one should ask is that if indeed rights are a derivative of wrongs then surely the document in question is not long or articulate enough to embody such a declaration nor could it be or will it ever.

Is that a question? If so, could you rephrase it please.

i do not see our rights as something that come from understanding wrongs at all, rather as truths which are evident within themselves and those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Is the "Right to life" self-evident or the right of a woman to have an abortion ?
P.S. think about it. Got to go, see you tomorrow....

Yes well that did come out more like a statement rather then a question, sorry. Let me try that again . The question one should ask is that if indeed rights are a derivative of wrongs then surely the ducument in question is not articulate enough or is it? Hrm what I said before comes off so much better as a statement. Anyway it was late, that is my excuse.

I believe there is massive public confusion about "rights". What do we mean when we say that someone has a right to something? Clearly the implication today means that the individual in question has some sort of case against another person, institution or even the state. It seems that they may get upset and demand their rights. The problem here is that this is not the traditional concept of rights which refered to an envelope of general legal protections that covered each citizen equally. These traditional rights BTW are the ones that built the entire free world. These rights are labeled negative rights because they protect our right not to be interfered with unless we break a law. These negative rights are usually the same for all and protected by law. That is what equality used to mean. Today however it seems rights have taken on a new meaning that being rights to demand package of specific goods, services, money and or privileges from the state. These rights are called positive rights because the person or group declaring them wants more then to be left alone. I will post more on that later. That said it seems the thread has been hi jacked.

With regards to the abortion matter. Since the matter is based on freedom of choice I think that the woman ought to be subject to her original choice that being the one were she decided that she would be engaging in intercourse knowing full well the risk of that act should IMO preclude her from taking the life of the unborn child and what of the fathers rights in the matter? Does the woman have a right to have the state pay for the service of abortion? Personally I call abortion murder and have nothing but praise for the recent republican victory over partial birth abortion matter, truely a barbaric pratice.

 

[kyleb]

i do not see our rights as something that come from understanding wrongs at all, rather as truths which are evident within themselves and those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Is the "Right to life" self-evident or the right of a woman to have an abortion ?
P.S. think about it. Got to go, see you tomorrow....

i belive that a fetus is not protected against under the right to life until it has developed to the point that it can survive independent of the womb. i do not support abortion, however i do belive that it falls under the concepts of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so even while i would not invovle myself in such a thing myself i do belive that we have the right to do so.

 

[Gubbi]

Is the "Right to life" self-evident or the right of a woman to have an abortion ?

Women doesn't have the right to an abortion.

You dont have the right to make that call.

Nor the power (fortunately)

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[kyleb]

unfortunately Gubbi, it seems that enough similar human laws have been set in motion to somehow trick people into believing they have the right to do such things.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Hmmm....

End of Brutal Regime ---> Constitutional Semantics --> Abortion

This can't be right.... There's no side-track on religion in general. Oh wait...that's another thread...

 

[Silent_One]

Sabastian
Regarding Abortion-
The question I asked was directed at Kyleb regarding weather rights are "truths which are evident within themselves". I have no problem with your answer, however I personally don't wish this discussion to stray further OT. (I guess I should have come up with a better question )

The question one should ask is that if indeed rights are a derivative of wrongs then surely the ducument in question is not articulate enough or is it?

The Declaration's purpose was not to articulate the legal determination of what rights people have or don't have. That was left to the Constitution, congress to make laws, and the judiciary to determine the legality of the laws.

I believe there is massive public confusion about "rights". What do we mean when we say that someone has a right to something? Clearly the implication today means that the individual in question has some sort of case against another person, institution or even the state. It seems that they may get upset and demand their rights.

I agree. People are confused as to what their rights are vs. what the "laws" are. People don't have a right to a "free" education. People don't have the right to a job. Notice however that you seem to be saying what I'm saying-our own experences with precieved injustices (wrongs) are used to justify our demand for "rights".

 

[Silent_One]

kyleb-
Again the question is are all rights "truths which are evident within themselves"?

 

[Himself]

If you don't believe in God, mean you don't love God, than God will put you to damnation.

LOL

 

[Himself]

Women doesn't have the right to an abortion.

Women have the right to choose what they want to do with their own bodies without the state interfering, a fetus is not a citizen until it is born, until then it is living in the sovereign nation that is the woman. Now, the US might arbitrarily decide to invade the woman on the grounds of a threat of human rights abuses, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[covermye]

Now, the US might arbitrarily decide to invade the woman on the grounds of a threat of human rights abuses, but that doesn't make it right.

Conversely, other countries may "arbitrarily" (to use your term) decide to allow the woman to invade the fetus when it comes to the subject of abortion on the grounds of a threat of human rights abuses (where the woman is concerned), but that doesn't make THAT right, either.

 

[Sabastian]

I believe there is massive public confusion about "rights". What do we mean when we say that someone has a right to something? Clearly the implication today means that the individual in question has some sort of case against another person, institution or even the state. It seems that they may get upset and demand their rights.

I agree. People are confused as to what their rights are vs. what the "laws" are. People don't have a right to a "free" education. People don't have the right to a job. Notice however that you seem to be saying what I'm saying-our own experences with precieved injustices (wrongs) are used to justify our demand for "rights".

Hrm while it certainly does appear that we are agreeing the matter is not that simple. The thrust of my argument is that this current description of what people feel are their rights comes from this human rights pork barreling where groups and individuals make claims agianst the state in that they want something in compansation, from the state, for some preceived wrong. However that is the current arrangement and what was once thought to be the way to achieve ultimate liberty has now become something quite opposite then the writers had set out to acheive. We are not saying the same thing in that I totally disagree with the mentality that people ought to be blackmailing the government over precieved human right violations. In fact it gives powers to the court over our elected representatives in government.

You do note however it is that I rather the notion of negative rights over positive rights as I articulated in this portion of my argument.

The problem here is that this is not the traditional concept of rights which refered to an envelope of general legal protections that covered each citizen equally. These traditional rights BTW are the ones that built the entire free world. These rights are labeled negative rights because they protect our right not to be interfered with unless we break a law. These negative rights are usually the same for all and protected by law. That is what equality used to mean. Today however it seems rights have taken on a new meaning that being rights to demand package of specific goods, services, money and or privileges from the state. These rights are called positive rights because the person or group declaring them wants more then to be left alone.

I think that while the state and judiciary now have a document to work from in terms of rights all it has really done is create confusion and left the door wide open for interpretive results that may or may not be just. However what is worse once a precedent is set these things become chizzeled into stone and quite difficult to reverse the damage as well as the overall tone. Equal treatment does not equate equal outcomes. But that is what charter law does it creates a situation where by equality is measured in terms of how things turn out for individuals and groups in a statistical manner regardless if they have been treated the same as others. Because the human rights charter does guarantee a degree of well being then the state becomes responsible for the well being and equal outcomes of the persons or groups in question and these are entirely the outcome of the positive rights equation of wants > needs > rights > claims. Since these claims are made against the state they are also made against all tax paying citezens and therefor they are made to pay for these postive rights claims what ever the matter may be. The results are nothing short of a social enginers dream world and the last thing on these peoples minds is liberty particularly financial liberty and we all know what this sort of egalitarian thinking means.

EDIT: I would continue this in some other thread at this point it is safe to say that the thread is hi-jacked and way OT. Sorry for that. I think I read somewhere though something about rights and recall my mind going off on this tangent.

 

[Roger Kohli]

Women have the right to choose what they want to do with their own bodies without the state interfering, a fetus is not a citizen until it is born, until then it is living in the sovereign nation that is the woman.

In your opinion only. In my opinion an unborn child has rights too.

Slaves in America were not citizens either, thank goodness that was corrected. I think one day people will look back at our generation with disgust and wonder how we let so many millions of children be killed.[/b]

P.S. Sorry for the OT but abortion is something I feel I must make a stand against (because the unborn do not have a voice of their own).