Say “Protection of Life” instead.
Hmmph! So, you would like to change the public recognition of the "terminology" that has been used and immediately recognized around this country -- and shift the focus from the issue being spoken about -- to -- having to explain exactly what the heck you mean (over and over again) by some strange terminology.
"Protection of Life" -- well, that could mean protect those Pandas or wild donkeys or a thousand other species of life around the planet. You might be a PETA person if you start talking like that. But, "Right to Life" -- well, now we know we're not talking about Pandas and wild donkeys; we know we're talking about unborn babies.
Besides, it also fits in perfectly with the Declaration of Independence, in which certain "rights" are unalienable: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
There's your "Right to Life", which fits in with the Declaration of Independence. If you start going down the track of "protection of life", besides having to explain all day long what the heck you're talking about, you've moved "out of the category" of "unalienable rights" endowed by our Creator, into the realm of government legislation, in which it is designed to "protect life". That's not a good move.
I'm sure this is the reason it was framed that way in the beginning of this movement.
It sounds like you've been talking to too many lawyers or are one yourself. The terminology "Right to Life" is perfect the way it is...
You know, this is similar to the same kind of issue that some "Israeli thinker" put forward in regards to Israel's "Right to Exist". They were saying that there's no such thing that any other country has to contend with in terms of their "right to exist". It's a given and it's not discussed or subject to agreements and such. And so, they go into a bunch of reasoning that goes to show that the focus should be on the "protection" of Israel, given that its "right to exist" is not something that should be discussed, disputed or subject to agreements.
Well, that sounds all well and good if you're some kind of "policy wonk" in the government, but it doesn't work well out in the real world. About the second sentence that you began, with that idea and people would be going "Huh!??" And then you've lost them. But, say, "Israel's right to exist" and everyone knows what the heck you're talking about.
It's the same thing here, except here, we've also got that very same language in the Declaration of Independence, which defines these rights as from our Creator and not from the government. It sounds like you want to "toss" the language of the Declaration of Independence.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Wow man, do you even know what a ‘right’ is? ‘Cause if you did you would know that no government can give away rights, they aren’t theirs to grant. You’re quoting the Declaration but you’re not understanding it dude. They say “We HOLD these truths…”, that means they’re recognizing an already established fact. The only entity mentioned that gives out rights is “our Creator”, surely Hunter doesn’t put himself in that category.
Your only real justification for your argument is that it’s hard to explain in the ‘real world.’ Well boo-freakin-hoo, deal with it. If dumbing down an argument is the only way you think you can win, be my guest but don’t masquerade around as if you can contribute to a serious discussion. Here, this is about simple as you can get it: the SOLE role of government is to protect our rights, not make up new ones and sure as hell not to trounce on the ones we already have. States DO NOT have rights, only people. The state of Israel does not have a right to exist, the Israeli people have the right to exist and the right to defend that right.
Look, you write much better then I do and you know the arguments, you pretty much wrote then same thing I just did, just put a unintellectual populist twist on the end of it.