Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't me saying that government should be able to do whatever the hell it wants, but people insist that they have rights not granted by the constitution. What is the basis of these particular "rights" beyond them being something the person thinks they are entitled to?
(Let me preface this by saying I don't give a flying fuck about abortion, and probably never will unless I accidentally impregnate someone, and that this post is about RIGHTS not ABORTION.)
"I have a right to choice"
"Oh yeah? Well, the baby has a right to life."
"Babies have a right to life!"
"Oh yeah? Well, fuck you buddy, 'cuz I have have a right to kill! I should be able to kill anything I want to! It's my natural right! And forget fetuses, I have a right to kill dogs, cats, and Belgians if I so desire!"
I don't really get these arguments. Saying:
"I think I should be allowed to [x]" "What makes you think you should be allowed to do that?" "I have a right to [x]!"
Seems to me to be the same as:
"I think I should be allowed to [x]" "What makes you think you should be allowed to do that?" "I think I should be allowed to [x]"
So what the hell is up with that? It doesn't seem like an argument, it seems like someone getting indignant and pulling rights out of their asses to justify whatever it is they want to do. Is there some invisible entity that establishes what "rights" are? If so, there seems to be some confusion as to what "rights" are. There's the concept of the birthright, these are established by the family and the cultural circumstances of the person with the birthright. There are constitutional rights in America that were established by the founding fathers and Congress in order to prevent tyranny while also preventing chaos. But where do plain-jane "rights" that people assert they have in arguments come from? Anywhere?
<CENTER>http://members.aol.com/jadussvii/Alc...ngineering.oggThis music wants you dead.</a></center>