| Thursday, November 27, 2008 - 06:04 am |
Well stated BorderC.
@Vali. Your sentiments are noble and an example of how successful our free societies have become at sheltering our citizens from the harsh realities of much of the world. I respect your views and take some satisfaction from the belief that you may live your entire life without being forced by reality to modify them.
However, I believe killing a murderer is sometimes morally correct. I have no issue with homosexuals whatsoever. So how EXACTLY am I morally equivalent to some crackpot who advocates their or any other cultural subgroup's murder?
@ Dear Zet. Your responses were concise as ever, but you never rebutted my statements. You have only reiterated that a "right" to life exists.
Who grants this mythical right?
Who guarantees it?
Stating it does not make it so. In point of fact, no American here can claim a Constitutional right to life. The central question of whether the State reserves the authority to terminate the lives of its citizens has long been settled in this country. Our own Bill of Rights answers that question.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Whether such applies in theory to European nations, I have no idea. But in practice? You have armed police forces with the authority to use lethal force in the lawful performance of their duties. Therefore, your governments DO, in practice, reserve to themselves the "right" to terminate the lives of citizens.
While in some respect, we are arguing semantics, the premise that we have any "inalienable" right to exist is not supported by fact. Whatever guarantees or protections you may think exist in the social contracts between citizens and governments in our nations are entirely theoretical. Calling it a RIGHT does not give it force.
2: something to which one has a just claim: as a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled (voting rights) (his right to decide)
b(1): the interest that one has in a piece of property ,often used in plural (mineral rights) (2)plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature (film rights of the novel)
3: something that one may properly claim as due (knowing the truth is her right)
4: the cause of truth or justice
All such "rights" are only as valid as the will and capacity to enforce or honor them. Therefore, one cannot claim that their government cannot execute them because they have a "right" to live. They do not.