The rights are NOT "granted". We are "endowed by [our] creator" with them. The Constitution merely codifies and sets up defenses for a few of the more important ones that need the most protection from government.
It's a religious thing - it's that simple. It's pretty clear that John's a closet Bible-thumper. )-;
Of course, they never seem to get around to acknowledging "The Miracle Of Childbirth". >:->
One pregnant person becomes two distinct people when they are distinguishable without violating the skin of the original one.
You are completely correct, at least in theory. What John refers to is a rulership of some kind where the rulers grant _privileges_ to its _subjects_ (not citizens). John puts the cart before the horse, in theory; in the practical sense, I'm afraid he's right. That is, the idea of a "self-government" of "citizens" putting checks on guvmints seems to be mere soma for the masses: Exhibit 1-the US guvmint.
Theoretically, in self-government, the guvmint has no power to grant anything whatsoever -- it was created by the people, and its powers are limited to those the people enumerated to it. But the world of politics/guvmint is upside down: first came guvmint, then "it" granted privilege to the people.
Richard Henry wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
well,the option of taking it to animal control is available,and vets will put it down,humanely.Or you can take it to a vet of your choice;Medical personnel,either way.
Note that abortion rights proponents are not arguing for the right to "do it themselves",but properly under a doctor's care. and they are not terminating a BORN baby,but a unborn fetus,NOT a person under current law.
krw wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net:
It seems the majority of the US does not agree with your position. There ARE different rules concerning "murder" and legal abortions performed by medical personnel.
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
In my experience, critics praise far too many movies. Which is only natural in a job which forces you to watch tons of them; if you didn't like the majority of films you wouldn't be doing that job.
So it is just a matter of what the law says? How does law get written? Why? How? Are there moral sentiments, or is law just the order handed down by a wise, divine, and benevolent ruler? A wise, divine, and benevolent mob? Who? Why?
How can you have rights if they are not enforced by law? Rights without law is meaningless.
The People choose which laws they will themselves be subject to. I agree that theft should be illegal, with the understanding that it is then illegal for people to steal from me, as well as it's illegal for me to steal from others. Absolute freedom only happens in the jungle, where it's kill and/or be killed.
John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
More accurately,the People have failed to keep check on their government.
governments tend to exceed their limits,gradually or suddenly,to create or take more powers than they are chartered to have. The US Founders recognized that,warned against it. It depends on the People to correct any usurpation of power by government,either by electing new officials,or by force of arms. (thus the 2nd Amendment's protection of the People's RKBA.)
It says all this in the Declaration of Independence.
I wouldn't here argue against this last post of yours, but your response (here) doesn't really address what Rich pointed out in his reply to your comment about "grants of rights."
The constitution was created for the formation of a enumerated powers guvmint, not an explication of of guvmint grants of rights to people. Read the constitution -- it is about the formation and limits of guvmint, not about "right granting." The Bill of Rights was added later only due to anti-federalist arguments. This is all well-known history and political theory. For example, Leonard Levy's, _The Bill of Rights_. The Bill of Rights says what the guvmint cannot do, not what people are restricted from doing.
Basically, *first* came people who *then* formed a guvmint. The guvmint has no power to grant rights. Rich's basic point stands exactly correct. In point of fact, you are now agreeing as you write "The People choose which laws they will themselves be subject to." At least that is what self-government political theory claims. I can easily guarantee that everyone does not "choose" all the laws they are subjected to.
That is a state of nature, not social context, practice, or theory. We're talking about people gathered in society, not in a state of nature. Liberty in the social context is actually (and ironically) about restraint. That is social liberty is "a negative," just like your "don't steal" comment reveals because stealing interferes with the owner's liberty to do as they wish with their property. It actually says what can't be done, not what can be done.
What can be done is about power, not freedom. You are free to earn a zillion dollars. Whether or not you can do it depends on your personal power, not your freedom. To say someone "is free," is not to cause an action, it only removes the restraints against the potential action.
Guvmint does not and cannot grant freedoms. It can't. It specifies some actions that are not permissible, not those that are permissible. The guvmint grants of copy"right" and patent are not "rights." They are guvmint granted monopoly privilege, not rights. Those are license, not liberty.
I don't agree with all of this, but it is good oil (Liberties in Three Dimensions):
It doesn't say that the people are wise. We, collectively, have elected the people who pass the laws. With sufficient popular demand, we can un-elect them, or change any of the laws, including the Constitution itself.
Well that's what the guvner goobers keep telling us. It is bogus. At best, voting amounts to the asshole who will hurt "you" least, or rob "your" neighbor and give "you" a share of the booty.
The Constitution itself was not written or ratified by "popular demand."
To me, there are at least two angles here, not to mention the prohibition of the establishment of a state religion:
Whose property are you? 1A: If the woman's fetus isn't her property, whose property is it? Does that make the rest of her his property too? 1A1: What entitles this alleged owner from 1A to claim ownership of someone else's tissue?
Consider an impregnated woman. How many people do you see? a. One woman (time passes) b. One slightly pregnant woman (time passes) c. One pregnant woman (time passes) d. One VERY pregnant woman
**** THE MIRACLE OF CHILDBIRTH **** e. Two people, one woman and one screaming poop machine. ;-)
Once again, John is taking the religious tack that a fetus is an entire person, not realizing that to endow this fetus with "rights" means to strip the existing, born person of HER right to control her own body and what is or isn't done to it.
In their zeal to protect "the rights of the unborn", they deny the rights of the born.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.