Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Rights are much like ethical principles. They are discovered by understanding human nature and needs. It's not about what people want, but rather but rather about the legal conditions they need to flourish in society.
eudaimonia,
Mark
I dunno Mark, I'd say that "flourishing" and the legal values that create conditions in which to flourish can change.
Before the conversation goes further, we need to understand the difference between "unalienable" and "inalienable".
The final draft and official Declaration of Independence states that the People have unalienable rights. Ever wonder why the "government" chose to misrepresent the Declaration by carving "inalienable rights" into the Jefferson memorial?
- Yes, we have unalienable rights. Something is unalienable if it is inherent in a being, such as eye color. It cannot be taken away from you nor can you give it up.
- We also have inalienable rights. Something is inalienable if it is part of a being, and cannot legally be taken away from you ... but can be voluntarily given up or waived by personal consent, such as your eyes.
Examples to the contrary in the US include suing states to get SSM passed as the law of the land, suing Christians who won't perform those marriages, putting a woman in prison for refusing to sign the papers to accept a SSM, restricting only pro-life protesters away from abortion clinics (any other protesters are fine picketing outside the businesses they are against), forcing states to accept abortion on demand, and the government spending the money we give them to support Planned Parenthood as they abort babies to sell their organs.Yes, it can be determined what this means for everyone. However, this is done in the abstract, not by telling each and every individual how they should judge their individual situations. That job is left to individuals.
Since rational activity is free, not compelled, there is no need for a government to force people into its own specific views of what they should be doing. Government is only there to enforce laws that secure rights that preserve the freedom to be rationally self-directed. That freedom may be called "individual liberty".
Examples are laws against murder, rape, assault, theft, kidnapping...
eudaimonia,
Mark
I disagree."English has changed since the founders of the United States used unalienable in the signed final draft of their 1776 Declaration of Independence (some earlier drafts and later copies have inalienable). Inalienable, which means exactly the same thing—both mean incapable of being transferred to another or others—is now the preferred form."
http://grammarist.com/usage/inalienable-unalienable/
I don't think there's a conspiracy at work, to be honest.
There was certainly a difference between the two words in the late 1700s. This is evidenced by the fact that Jefferson changed the wording from "inalienable" (in his first drafts of the Declaration) to the word "unalienable" (in the final copy). If there was no difference, then there would be no reason for Jefferson to change the word.
Even an accomplished jurist like Jefferson cannot be expected to know the definition of every word. I would be surprised if he changed the word for any reason besides accuracy and precision; perhaps he received advice from his peers regarding the word and consciously changed it to "unalienable".
I can imagine reasons. It may simply have sounded better.
And why would he have been confused enough to use the wrong word to his intent in the first place? That doesn't make any sense to me. I'd like to see some document that explains the change.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Us and Texas are the main death penalty states, and also the most conservative in Christian virtue.
Ironically.
We've been taught we've got them, but do they really exist? And, if they do, where in the Bible are the rights? Do we truly have rights?
What do we mean by "Rights"? Is, for example, the fact that we will die at some point a right?
Rights pertain to choices that are seen as properly your own. That you will die at some point is not a right since that is not your choice, but it is arguably your right to eat unhealthy food even though this might shave a few years off of your life.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Are there really unalienable rights
no. Humans made it all up and so many other humans liked it and agreed they all forgot that they made it upWe've been taught we've got them, but do they really exist? And, if they do, where in the Bible are the rights? Do we truly have rights?
The three rights most often referred to are Life, Liberty, and Property. The one most likely to pass muster is the first of these, and it does appear that a good case can be made for it from Scripture.We've been taught we've got them, but do they really exist? And, if they do, where in the Bible are the rights? Do we truly have rights?
The three rights most often referred to are Life, Liberty, and Property. The one most likely to pass muster is the first of these, and it does appear that a good case can be made for it from Scripture.
The other two are considered unalienable because they are intimate to the first one. There is no possibility of really enjoying--which is to say, having--the right to life without the minimum of the ability to experience it. That would be freedom and possessing the fruits of one's honest labor.
To live one's life until the body wears out is a natural right or, IOW, an "unalienable" right. The fact that a person is allowed, by the laws of the USA, to kill himself doesn't mean that it isn't an unalienable right, not any more than you have a legal right to practice your religion freely but are not required by the secular laws to have a religion. Same with free speech or the right to assemble.Can you explain you perspective on the right to life? I have never understood how anyone could claim that as a right since
a) Suicide is illegal most places .
and
b) One of two things we are certain of is we are going to die.
If we have no choice to when we die and have no ability to ensure we continue to live when we want how can it be a right?
To live one's life until the body wears out is a natural right or, IOW, an "unalienable" right. The fact that a person is allowed, by the laws of the USA, to kill himself doesn't mean that it isn't an unalienable right, not any more than you have a legal right to practice your religion freely but are not required by the secular laws to have a religion. Same with free speech or the right to assemble.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?