From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Aug 28 2001 - 12:24:51 MDT
Russell Blackford wrote:
>
> Zero said
>
> > After all, I
> >think *everyone* would agree that there exists an inalienable right to
> life.
>
> Really?? What sort of right is it supposed to be? Is it a restriction on
> legislative power? Is it a claim right against everyone for the minimum
> means of life? Or what?
>
> I realise you're not actually arguing for any of these things.
Being born does confer on you the right to claim against those who
brought you into this world for any resources necessary to become an
independent, fully enfranchised human being. This is the responsibility
that is entailed in a parent exercising their right to procreate. Once
you are fully enfranchised, if you still resent being born, it is your
right to end your life.
>
> > Not too long ago one Timothy McVeigh had his right to life, well,
> severely
> >abridged.
>
> Quite so. His execution was justified by law (which does not necessarily
> mean that I approve of such laws, just that it was, in fact, the law).
McVeigh abridged his own life by his actions. Since the right to live
contains a corrollary right to choose to not live (just as the right to
free speech contains a corrollary right to choose to not speak), every
criminal who commits an act which results in their own exection is
simply exercising their own right to choose to not live.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:11 MST