Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 256

Thread: "They are endowed by their creator with certain inailienable rights..."

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    419

    "They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

    My essay:

    “They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...”
    Edowed: inherited through existence
    Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

    We have heard these words many times and have undoubtedly passed over them a time or two. However, it is necessary and vital that we pause and consider these words which reflect much about the governmental paradigm our forefathers and the worldview which shaped this nation.

    We hold these truths to be self evident.
    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.

    Our forefathers viewed these (all assumptions underlying the previous statements) as truths which were observable (self-evident) and indisputable. They viewed that there are certain rights that transcend society and culture. This phrase, which comes straight from the declaration of independence and is revisited in the constitution, is the cornerstone of our constitution. Therefore, it can be said that this concept (that there are transcendent rights endowed by someone higher than government) is the foundation of our entire government. In the declaration we read the very purpose of the structure of government as viewed by our forefathers. The purpose of government is:

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

    Because these rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) transcend all of humanity, we must recognize that it is any government’s responsibility to secure those rights for all members of the human race.

    So where do these rights come from?
    Well, if you ask a theist they will say they were endowed by God (the creator). If you ask a naturalist they will say they were created in the mind of man (endowed by nature). If you ask a transcendentalist they will say they were endowed by the force, Luke. However, rarely will someone who is reasonable deny they exist. Wherever you might like to say these rights originate, you are foolish to deny the existence of these certain inalienable rights (if not for the sheer purpose and means of self preservation!).

    It is essential to recognize that these rights do not come from government but are merely recognized by government. Therefore, we conclude that since they do not come from government, they should not be taken away by government.

    Let us examine these rights.
    We should be careful to observe any place where the concept of rights is mentioned in the documents. In observing we must look and seek to understand each right in the light and context of this statement: 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.

    First, let us examine the right to life. It is interesting to note that this right is mentioned first, and that it is mentioned first for a reason. The right to exist is a fundamental right. Once one obtains the genetic code that is specific to the human race, one exists. From this point on one has a right to continue to exist and this right no one can dispute.

    Now, lets examine the right to liberty. What is liberty? What is true freedom? Bottom line, this must be defined as free choice in every circumstance. However, does the possibility exist that there is a type of liberty which transcends all of the experiences of mankind? Is there an ultimate freedom which frees mankind from oppression? I leave this for the reader to examine.

    Finally, the right to the pursuit of happiness. This is the “whatever floats your boat” right. Happiness is different things to different people and has been viewed as a celebration of individuality. However, is it possible that a true and ultimate happiness exists which transcends all of mankind? A certain happiness that enthralls men and brings them unsurpassing joy? Again, I leave this for the reader to examine.

    An understood and observed logical hierarchy of rights.
    We can observe within the constitution and declaration a hierarchy of rights. This hierarchy is based upon one foundational right and that is the right to life. All rights derive themselves from this fundamental right. It is reasonable to say that without this right there would be no other rights.

    For example, let us consider one scenario within the constitution. We have the right to bare arms. This right would not exist were it not for (partly) a right to defend oneself. The right to defend one’s self would not exist were it not for the right to liberty and property. The right to liberty and property would not exist were it not for the right to life (were it not for the right of a human to continue to exist).

    It is reasonable for one to acknowledge that in order to be happy one must be free to be happy(whatever one’s definition of happiness), and in order for one to be free to be happy one must exist to be free.

    What happens when the rights of two persons appear be in conflict?
    Upon casual reading one may conclude that all rights are of equal quality. However, this cannot be the case. It must be noted that the right to life is of a different quality of all other rights. The right to life is a right of sanctity and dignity while the right to happiness is a right which determines the quality of that sanctity and dignity.

    Whenever we see a confliction of rights within our culture there is always a right which takes precedent. Your right to bare arms stops with my right to defend myself. A rapist’s right to happiness stops with the victim’s right to liberty. A murderer’s right to happiness stops with the victim’s right to life. In every conflict of rights, it is necessary that the more fundamental right take precedent.

    Let us a look at the mother’s right to choose whether or not to donate her bodily resources vs. the baby in the womb’s right to life (the right to continue to exist). The conflict of rights between the mother’s right to happiness and freedom may sometimes be in conflict with the baby’s right to life. Comparing these to rights as equal is impossible and unreasonable. The right to life is of a different quality then all of the other rights. The right to life is the assumption of all other rights, and to assume it to be equal to any other right is to commit a fallacy.

    When it comes to a fundamental right to life(the sanctity and dignity of a human life) vs. a right to happiness (the quality and personal desires of a human life). Which one should win? Well which one is more fundamental? Upon the fundamental right to life hang all other rights bestowed upon humanity and all laws which government can ethically mandate.

    So, my question remains:
    Why is there even an option of abortion (other then when the baby’s right to continue to exist conflicts with the mother’s right to continue to exist)?
    Here is what I think. Those whose transcendent fundamental right to life is being trampled upon are being denied their right to life because they have no voice. Neither do they have the power to stand up for themselves. They are the most innocent among us. They are the weakest of the weak. They are the smallest of the small. Therefore no one notices when fundamental incomparable right to life is denied to these voiceless human beings. While so many are choosing the road of selfishness in exchanging another’s right to continue to exist for their own posh lifestyle and convenience, let those who have a voice and a heart cry out for equal justice under law for all.

    There may come a day when out of duty America’s citizens must make application of this statement found in the declaration.
    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    In our dynamic culture, let us embrace a culture that values a right to life. Otherwise we always be moving toward the antithesis and will become a culture that embraces death.
    Last edited by chloe; 04-03-2005 at 11:07 PM.
    Cause a persons a person no matter how small - Dr. Seuss Horton Hears a Who

    I just say we make a law against abortion, and stop the genocide against the unborn. Why end a human life on the basis size, development, and environment?

    A consistant pro-choice view is that a woman would be justified in killing a newborn baby, or "allowing it to starve" (to be politically incorrect) if she did not want to offer her bodily resources as nutrition and if there were no other options.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Stockbridge, Georgia
    Posts
    7,166
    You've gone a great length here to say you're against abortion...only to hear possibly from the pro-choice crowd that life begins at birth.
    What you say can and will be used against you.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    419
    no one disputes that human life begins at conception
    Cause a persons a person no matter how small - Dr. Seuss Horton Hears a Who

    I just say we make a law against abortion, and stop the genocide against the unborn. Why end a human life on the basis size, development, and environment?

    A consistant pro-choice view is that a woman would be justified in killing a newborn baby, or "allowing it to starve" (to be politically incorrect) if she did not want to offer her bodily resources as nutrition and if there were no other options.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Stockbridge, Georgia
    Posts
    7,166
    Quote Originally Posted by chloe
    no one disputes that human life begins at conception
    You know better than that. There are several misinformed posters on this forum who would argue that point 'til the cows come home.
    What you say can and will be used against you.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    419
    science recognizes that human life begins at conception. even john kerry and al sharpton recognize that. this is well established by science.

    this essay is for those who say that even if you establish that life begins at conception i have the right to choose not to donate my bodily resources against my will.(like sigma)

    Those on this board who say you have to be a certain size, or live in a certain environment (where do you live), or produce some sort of good for society, or be a certain color, or have a limited number of genetic defects in order to be deemed human life are ignorant of scientific fact.
    Cause a persons a person no matter how small - Dr. Seuss Horton Hears a Who

    I just say we make a law against abortion, and stop the genocide against the unborn. Why end a human life on the basis size, development, and environment?

    A consistant pro-choice view is that a woman would be justified in killing a newborn baby, or "allowing it to starve" (to be politically incorrect) if she did not want to offer her bodily resources as nutrition and if there were no other options.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,715
    Quote Originally Posted by jim's trucking
    You know better than that. There are several misinformed posters on this forum who would argue that point 'til the cows come home.
    Hey I am pro-choice and believe that life begins at conception.

    However - that doesn't mean that Jim, Chloe, or Wubya the Monkey get to make blanket decisions for total strangers without their input and without regard to their circumstances.

    There are simply better ways to address abortion than stepping on the rights and privacy of pregnant women, strapping down their options, demonizing them for their sexuality and trivializing everything they are facing.
    “But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most? ” ~ Mark Twain

    "Those who are easily shocked... should be shocked more often" ~ Mae West

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    419
    comparing these rights of the mother to have a certain quality of life with the right of the fetus to continue to exist is an unequal comparrison
    Cause a persons a person no matter how small - Dr. Seuss Horton Hears a Who

    I just say we make a law against abortion, and stop the genocide against the unborn. Why end a human life on the basis size, development, and environment?

    A consistant pro-choice view is that a woman would be justified in killing a newborn baby, or "allowing it to starve" (to be politically incorrect) if she did not want to offer her bodily resources as nutrition and if there were no other options.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,715
    Quote Originally Posted by chloe
    comparing these rights of the mother to have a certain quality of life with the right of the fetus to continue to exist is an unequal comparrison
    To believe that it's that simple and cut and dry is either complete blindness and ignorance, or the complete trivialization of women.
    “But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most? ” ~ Mark Twain

    "Those who are easily shocked... should be shocked more often" ~ Mae West

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    419
    i never made any comment on those going through the experience of having an abortion or having a baby. No doubt it is a life changing experience. And there are definitely complicated cases which are tough emotionally and physically and socially. life is definitely tough at times. however the question of whether or not to preserve human life in a pregnancy must be always be aswered with the choice to preserve sanctity of life above quality of life.

    my heart goes out to the women caught in these complicated situations.
    Cause a persons a person no matter how small - Dr. Seuss Horton Hears a Who

    I just say we make a law against abortion, and stop the genocide against the unborn. Why end a human life on the basis size, development, and environment?

    A consistant pro-choice view is that a woman would be justified in killing a newborn baby, or "allowing it to starve" (to be politically incorrect) if she did not want to offer her bodily resources as nutrition and if there were no other options.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Stockbridge, Georgia
    Posts
    7,166
    Quote Originally Posted by jitobear
    Hey I am pro-choice and believe that life begins at conception.

    However - that doesn't mean that Jim, Chloe, or Wubya the Monkey get to make blanket decisions for total strangers without their input and without regard to their circumstances.

    There are simply better ways to address abortion than stepping on the rights and privacy of pregnant women, strapping down their options, demonizing them for their sexuality and trivializing everything they are facing.
    Don't lump Jim into a group unless you know where Jim stands. I'm pro-life except in cases of rape, incest or endangerment of the mother's life. I don't like abortions, but sometimes they are justified.

    There are too many potential parents wanting children they can't have themselves to allow random abortions just because the pregnant female or her family doesn't want the baby.

    ...and life does begin at conception.

    JMHO.
    What you say can and will be used against you.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    than stepping on the rights
    from jitobear...

    NO one has read my post about what a RIGHT is....I suggest we look at that.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    the Declaration of Independence has no legally standing

    Did we forget that?

    Have we forgotten that it didn't apply, and that the signers themselves didn't use it in their lifes?

    chloe, please refrain from using obvious hypocritical sources in such argumnts.
    Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell
    the Declaration of Independence has no legally standing

    Did we forget that?

    Have we forgotten that it didn't apply, and that the signers themselves didn't use it in their lifes?

    chloe, please refrain from using obvious hypocritical sources in such argumnts.
    these same rights are also afforded under the constitution.

    also,
    this document (dec of ind) gives insight into what paradigm the founding fathers had. they clearly viewed that these basic rights were transcendent and bestowed and that all of humanity possessed them. these documents give us a context from which to interpret the constitution.
    Cause a persons a person no matter how small - Dr. Seuss Horton Hears a Who

    I just say we make a law against abortion, and stop the genocide against the unborn. Why end a human life on the basis size, development, and environment?

    A consistant pro-choice view is that a woman would be justified in killing a newborn baby, or "allowing it to starve" (to be politically incorrect) if she did not want to offer her bodily resources as nutrition and if there were no other options.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    Quote Originally Posted by chloe
    these same rights are also afforded under the constitution.
    Please. *sigh* The constitution and the Declration are two very different things, from ideology to application. The declaration is bascially a list of "why the king forced us to do this."

    also,
    this document (dec of ind) gives insight into what paradigm the founding fathers had. they clearly viewed that these basic rights were transcendent and bestowed and that all of humanity possessed them. these documents give us a context from which to interpret the constitution.
    Except they did not. Do you know that many of the signeres were slave owners? Kind of blows your argument away doesn't it?
    Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell
    Please. *sigh* The constitution and the Declration are two very different things, from ideology to application. The declaration is bascially a list of "why the king forced us to do this."
    i am talking specifically about their view of rights (right to life,liberty, pursuit of happiness) and their view of the puropose of gov that its purpose in society (ideally) was to sucure these rights. the constitution recognizes these rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell
    Except they did not. Do you know that many of the signeres were slave owners? Kind of blows your argument away doesn't it?
    that is irrelevant to the argument about abortion. these rights exist whether gov recognizes them or not. the fact that slavery was abolished is a testimony to this.

    i feel you have missed the whole point of the essay
    Cause a persons a person no matter how small - Dr. Seuss Horton Hears a Who

    I just say we make a law against abortion, and stop the genocide against the unborn. Why end a human life on the basis size, development, and environment?

    A consistant pro-choice view is that a woman would be justified in killing a newborn baby, or "allowing it to starve" (to be politically incorrect) if she did not want to offer her bodily resources as nutrition and if there were no other options.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •