I appreciate the time you took to respond.
What you’ve done is show that discussion of rights really is as simple as I claim.
I see your answers to my three questions were “no”, even though I can tell you did not want to admit that. One of the first things I said was that one can do what one pleases as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others. That is not the same thing as you have the “right to pursue education”. It means no one has the right to stop you from doing so.
Why did I assume this was a discussion of natural rights? This thread was dedicated to health care. Absent man-made agreements, natural rights are the only one at play when it comes to healthcare. Otherwise, it’s between you and the mutually consenting party. Every edge case you presume to use is based on a mutual agreement between two consenting parties.
The rights you seem to be fond of are all man-made, and can be revoked by man.
And I appreciate your acknowledgement of that.
What you’ve done is show that discussion of rights really is as simple as I claim.
We disagree on that.
Absent man-made agreements, natural rights are the only one at play when it comes to healthcare.
And we have rights, though not natural rights, as a result of those agreements.
The rights you seem to be fond of are all man-made, and can be revoked by man.
I'm fond of the right to liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness (to include the pursuit of education) and I am most particularly fond of the right to life, and those are not man-made. I'm also fond of several rights that are not natural rights, such as the right to due process, the right to a trial by jury and the right to vote. What about the right to keep and bear arms? Is that a natural right?
Again, we disagree that discussion of rights is simple. But then, we haven't defined what we're discussing so: What's your definition of a right? Did you come to it yourself or do you have a source for it?