England UK

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> "Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:myukh.4255$w91.1159@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> [ SNIP ]
>>> As I informed someone else, rights - basic rights, human rights,
>>> inalienable rights - are in fact all based on need. There are no rights
>>> that are not based on need. So you must feel that there is some need that
>>> justifies unfettered RKBA. What is it?
>> You informed me, Arved, but I did not, and still do not, agree with you.
>>
>> You keep confusing a "want" with an unalienable right. So tell us all
>> what your definition of an unalienable right is? IIRC, you define it as
>> something that can be limited by government fiat; i.e., it's not an
>> unalienable right but a privilege. Is this correct?
>
> How do I define an inalienable right? As something that cannot *unjustly* be
> taken away. Ergo, an inalienable right to liberty means that you cannot be
> enslaved. An inalienable right to life means that you cannot be killed
> except in self-defense or as punishment for a heinous crime.
>
>> Do we have an unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
>> Happiness, Arved? Will you put limits on my "privilege" to Life? Or is
>> my life an unalienable right which I can expect, having been born in the
>> US?
>
> You do realize how abstract a "right to life" is, don't you? Seriously, what
> does it actually mean? Does it place obligations on other people to
> safeguard you? No, it doesn't. Essentially it means that it's a crime to
> kill you except as legal punishment. That's about it, in practical terms.

In practical terms, you say. Where did the government get the power to
kill you as a legal punishment? Practically speaking.

>> IOW, is it OK for a family to sell off their children so their organs can
>> be harvested for medical implants? Or do those children have an
>> unalienable right to life?
>
> I would find the practice abhorrent, and I'd have the parents in hard labour
> camps for the rest of their natural, but shortened, lives. But if the kids
> were not actually killed by the organ transplants, I don't think a right to
> life would cover the situation. I think it comes down to a right to liberty
> actually. You may have read about the case that recently came up down in the
> States, where a young man who is strongly suspected of having tried to whack
> a car rental agent or a car dealer - can't remember which - was shot by the
> victim, and is strongly suspected of having the bullet lodged in his
> forehead. Prosecutors are seeking to have a judge issue a warrant to have
> surgery done, but so far, no go.
>
> So it seems to me that organ harvests may be covered more under right to
> liberty and medical ethics. Wrt the latter, no elective surgical procedures
> without patient consent. So it may not be a constitutional issue.

The example you brought up is a 5th Amendment issue, not a Right to Life
one.

Why didn't Terry Schiavo's husband have a doctor give her a lethal
injection? It's because she had not been adjudged a criminal, so there
was no way she could have been killed. The only way out was to allow
her to die by neglect lest the husband and the attending physician stand
trial for murder.

So Ms. Schiavo's Right to Life was never infringed.

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian