tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7398816522051509280.post3943971643463281731..comments2023-11-03T07:19:42.953-05:00Comments on The Dissentators: America: The Only Country Where People Go Hunting on a Full StomachThe Dissentatorshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02826424514995298881noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7398816522051509280.post-3759463049258944362007-03-22T08:07:00.000-05:002007-03-22T08:07:00.000-05:00"Grant's rights," "grants the protection of pre-ex..."Grant's rights," "grants the protection of pre-existing rights," what difference do the semantics really make?<BR/><BR/>What are these "pre-existing rights" and where did they come from? Isn't any answer to that question going to be a matter of one's subjective opinion that many would disagree with them on?<BR/><BR/>Why didn't the Bill of Rights just say "the government will not infringe upon any pre-existing rights"? They could have saved a lot of ink!<BR/><BR/>The reason is because there is a difference between natural (or whatever word you want to use for pre-existing) rights and civil rights. Natural rights is a very subjective concept. Some would say we have a natural right to life but ever since there has been life, living things (people, animals, teenage mutant ninja turtles) have been killing one another. The civil society was something man created to get out of "nature" - where we have total freedom but are always in danger - and to move to civil society - where we do not have total freedom, but rather, our rights are constrained, and in return for giving up some of those rights we get the protection of the police (sometimes including Sting) and the army. This means that the government isn't going to allow us all of the rights we had before the government existed, it is going to take some of them away. I mean we can still do whatever we want but they can punish us and stuff. Of course the government intendeds to limit the things that it can tell us not to do and/or sanction us with its army for. This is where the Bill of Rights comes in. As opposed to acting like a totalitarian government, which can do whatever it wants to the people, a government can legally (important because if they try anything we can sue their ass) surrender some of its powers to do certain things, thereby "granting" certain rights to the people. Sure, the government didn't invent "life" and "liberty" but I don't think it is false to say that the government grants its citizens a right under the society that it maintains.<BR/><BR/>In closing, I have neither the time, nor the inclination to answer to a man who rises and sleeps under the very blanket of the freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it.BostonDissentatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02004316885387232050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7398816522051509280.post-30548092525577944732007-03-21T19:20:00.000-05:002007-03-21T19:20:00.000-05:00"the Fourteenth Amendment grants the aforementione..."the Fourteenth Amendment grants the aforementioned individual rights (life, liberty, property, due process, equal protection, etc) to "persons born or naturalized in the United States...'"<BR/><BR/>This is where you falter. <BR/>The Constitution grants zero rights.<BR/>It protects pre-existing rights. Is man so arrogant to think they are the granter of rights??? If such a man thinks so, I'd bet you an eye that he's dangerously tyrannical.<BR/><BR/>The whole concept of the BoR was to limit the power of government. Please stop thinking the Constitution "grants" any rights.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09246638715771369545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7398816522051509280.post-35164912563736050942007-03-15T15:44:00.000-05:002007-03-15T15:44:00.000-05:00Okay, first off, you are right about the 14th Amen...Okay, first off, you are right about the 14th Amendment extending to all "persons" on US soil.<BR/><BR/>Thus, as I said in my post, the debate ultimately ends at the question of whether and if so when the unborn is a "person." This is a highly subjective issue, and you are entitled to your (highly subjective) opinion.<BR/><BR/>So you think abortion is morally wrong and others think it is not. There is no right answer, but whose view should control? For me a question like this is clearly resolved in favor of leaving each individual to make their own personal, subjective choice for themself. Thus those who believe abortion is morally wrong are free to not have abortions, and those -- for whatever personal reasons completely foreign to and no business of any would-be third party decisionmaker -- would chose to have abortions are similarly free.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, in my opinion, threre is a problem with your statement that "abortion is morally wrong, and except in the most extreme circumstances, should be outlawed." If something is morally wrong, it would seem that it should be allowed under no circumstances whatsoever, while if there are circumstances where it could be allowed, then it must fall short of being morally wrong. Regardless, subjective, personal and moral views alone, in my opinion, are always a suspect justification for third parties constraining the behavior of another citizen in their personal life.BostonDissentatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02004316885387232050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7398816522051509280.post-89850495317807588502007-03-14T09:05:00.000-05:002007-03-14T09:05:00.000-05:00Good post. I think you have some valid arguments,...Good post. I think you have some valid arguments, and I hope to give you some counterpoints:<BR/><BR/>First, while your quote from the 14th amendment is correct, we extend those same rights to anyone in our borders. We give illegal immigrants the same rights that you mention, and they are neither born or naturalized US citizens. I also believe (and haven’t done my homework to find out for sure) that most states vary when an abortion is legal and illegal. <BR/><BR/>My personal belief is that an unborn fetus is an individual. As I stated in the original post, I would have said something totally different before my wife got pregnant. I believe my daughter was her own individual prior to being born. Because of that, I feel that abortion is morally wrong, and except in the most extreme circumstances, should be outlawed.Andy Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659445086323172664noreply@blogger.com