[wagglebee]

So, you are against the right to life?

Or do you just believe that every other freedom we have does not have a corresponding right to refuse to partake in it?

Nice twisting of words.

Leaving aside the question of whether the right to life also grants one the right to die, my statement was that euthanasia and assisted suicide ARE NOT RIGHTS. Both of these REQUIRE the participation of others, that is something that you and your ilk always ignore.

Movements don't restrict rights; people do...such as those who took Mr. Weinstein's. For every right, there's the freedom to exercise a corresponding right...

• There's a Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a corresponding freedom to go unarmed. Without that corresponding right, the RKBA would be an OBLIGATION, not a right.
• You have a freedom to express your political views, and a right to keep them to yourself.
• You have the right to assemble peaceably, and the freedom not to attend rallies. If attendance is forced, it's tyranny.
• You have the freedom to hold your beliefs and worship as you feel fit, but you have the right not to follow whatever the President believes. Do you disagree that it would be no right if you had no freedom to decline?
• You have the right to abstain from self-incrimination. But do you think your self-incriminating testimony would be thrown out if you chose to give it?
• You have the right to vote, but if someone showed up at your door with a gun and ballot, would you think it okay?

Now, I asked you if you had a shred of evidence that the right to life movement was trying to restrict Second Amendment rights and this is what you post?

Has the culture of death published a new set of talking points claiming that the pro-life movement wants to ban firearms?

In every case, we have free will. If there is no Right to Die, then there is no Right to Life...there is only Obligation.

Death is a PART of life but we did not create life, so we do not have the right to destroy it.

Rights are moral claims, to believe we have a right to death would presume that we also have the right to deny death and this is not the case.

And no matter much you leftist nanny-staters want to make The State and its muscle above the individual, the fact is that ever since the birth of Jesus, God never commanded his followers to forcibly impose their will on others. On the contrary, He commanded them to move on (shake off that dust, now).

People have the ABILITY to end their own lives, that DOES NOT make it a right no matter how much you try.

Implicit in the theory that there is a right to die is the belief that some life is not worth living.

You won't be able to convince me that any human living today has moral authority to overrule God, Jesus, the Constitution, or any individual by defining his rights as excluding that which is self-evident: the right to live and the right to die.

Except the right to life exists and we have a moral claim to it, the right to die cannot exist because death has a claim on us.

[Gondring]

Leaving aside the question of whether the right to life also grants one the right to die, my statement was that euthanasia and assisted suicide ARE NOT RIGHTS.

I give you credit for honesty in this discussion, my FRiend. Many of your colleagues in the anti-rights crowd play cutsie little games and try to pretend that assisted suicide and euthanasia are synonyms.

Both of these REQUIRE the participation of others, that is something that you and your ilk always ignore.

On the contrary, that's something I most vigorously point out.

It is absurd to think that one can have a right but be required to do it onesself. I don't recall you arguing this with Mrs. Schiavo's eating, and I think it's absurd to think that if one has a right to get a tattoo, for example, it applies only if one inks it himself. That's a contortionist view.

Now, I asked you if you had a shred of evidence that the right to life movement was trying to restrict Second Amendment rights and this is what you post?

Taking a man's rightfully owned firearms to prevent him from killing himself (Mr. Weinstein), even after confirmation that he is not mentally ill, is removing rights. I specifically answered that I wasn't writing about a "movement."

You have also changed terms..."pro-life" isn't the same as "right-to-life," in the sense you have used "pro-life" in the past.

Has the culture of death published a new set of talking points claiming that the pro-life movement wants to ban firearms.

I don't know. I don't associate with the culture of death, of course. In fact, they are more similar to you, in that you both seek to remove a person's rights and choices.

Death is a PART of life but we did not create life, so we do not have the right to destroy it.

Specious.

You didn't create bacteria, yet you take antibiotics, no?

People have the ABILITY to end their own lives, that DOES NOT make it a right no matter how much you try.

Of course the ability doesn't make it a right. It's a natural right, regardless of ability. One doesn't have to be able to speak to have a freedom of speech--and assistance in speaking is also a right that flows from it.

Implicit in the theory that there is a right to die is the belief that some life is not worth living.

Poppycock. You have all kinds of rights. Their merit has no effect on whether you have them or not.

You have the right to be free from troops quartering in your home tonight, not because it has to be a bad thing...but because it flows from a natural right. Likewise, those who have absolutely nothing to say still have a right to speak.

Except the right to life exists and we have a moral claim to it, the right to die cannot exist because death has a claim on us.

So how dare you oppose death?

Your belief as to what is right for you does not define the limits of others' rights.