Though I applaud this legislation, I can’t help commenting on the logical inanity that is a “right to life”.
We cannot grant a right to life. We can grant a right not to be killed/murdered, but we cannot grant life to the dead or ireemediably dying.
Also: can the courts exercise loco parentis for people who have not had a chance to be conceived? They have a “right to life” as potential human beings. A right to life could be read in legal terms as a right to existence that the court must exercise on behalf of all those millions of potential gamete-pairs that never make it into personhood. I doubt we’ld actually get a dystopian future where ovaries are confiscated at menarche and all gametes fertilised by order of the Supreme Court. But why buy into it with sloppy language?
Say “Protection of Life” instead.
Rights come from God, according to our founding documents. Hence, the term.
Though I applaud this legislation, I can’t help commenting on the logical inanity that is a “right to life”. We cannot grant a right to life.
You are right, we cannot. But God already has
We can grant a right not to be killed/murdered, but we cannot grant life to the dead or ireemediably dying. Also: can the courts exercise loco parentis for people who have not had a chance to be conceived? They have a “right to life” as potential human beings. A right to life could be read in legal terms as a right to existence that the court must exercise on behalf of all those millions of potential gamete-pairs that never make it into personhood. I doubt we’ld actually get a dystopian future where ovaries are confiscated at menarche and all gametes fertilised by order of the Supreme Court. But why buy into it with sloppy language? Say “Protection of Life” instead.
Your post is sophistry. Read the statement. "From the moment of conception"
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
Excuse me but I guess you have never read the constitution. Does the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ring a bell? It says we have these inalienable rights. Therefore we do have a right to life and the duty to protect those that haven't been born yet but are definitely alive and to do every thing in our power to make sure they live, barring disease and accident, long enough to be born.
Yes, we can guarantee the right NOT TO BE KILLED(hence the right to life) for an unborn child.