You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The right to life, is it absolute?
- Thread starter Waterdog
- Start date
Waterdog, I do believe that the right to life is absolute. The right to life can be stated as follows:
One's life, and the fruits of one's labor, are one's to do with as one pleases.
This right is the moral basis for laws against murder, assault, slavery, kidnapping, and theft.
Anyone who ignores this right by initiating the use of force against another automatically forfeits their own right to life for the duration of said attack. Joe Mugger has no right to try to take my life, or do injury to it. If he tries, his own right to life is temporarily in abeyance as I do whatever is necessary to halt his attack. If merely producing my gun causes him to remember a sudden urgent appointment elsewhere, then his right to life goes back into full effect the instant he breaks off his attack and begins retreating. At that point, I have no moral or legal basis for using any type of force against him.
Should he be so brainless as to press his attack, he'll get whatever it takes to stop him, and if he ends up permanently stopped, tough. He brought it upon himself.
I believe that the death penalty ought to be abolished, but not until we can get our prisons working the way they ought to. Truth in sentencing=you serve 100% of the time you were sentenced to. No parole.
Prison ought to be an experience which teaches a person a harsh lesson; hopefully harsh enough that fear of spending time there again will override their desire to commit a crime again. If it doesn't, well, three strikes, you're out. Go to prison and never come out alive, period. Life means you stay 'till you die.
------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center
[This message has been edited by 45King (edited August 08, 2000).]
One's life, and the fruits of one's labor, are one's to do with as one pleases.
This right is the moral basis for laws against murder, assault, slavery, kidnapping, and theft.
Anyone who ignores this right by initiating the use of force against another automatically forfeits their own right to life for the duration of said attack. Joe Mugger has no right to try to take my life, or do injury to it. If he tries, his own right to life is temporarily in abeyance as I do whatever is necessary to halt his attack. If merely producing my gun causes him to remember a sudden urgent appointment elsewhere, then his right to life goes back into full effect the instant he breaks off his attack and begins retreating. At that point, I have no moral or legal basis for using any type of force against him.
Should he be so brainless as to press his attack, he'll get whatever it takes to stop him, and if he ends up permanently stopped, tough. He brought it upon himself.
I believe that the death penalty ought to be abolished, but not until we can get our prisons working the way they ought to. Truth in sentencing=you serve 100% of the time you were sentenced to. No parole.
Prison ought to be an experience which teaches a person a harsh lesson; hopefully harsh enough that fear of spending time there again will override their desire to commit a crime again. If it doesn't, well, three strikes, you're out. Go to prison and never come out alive, period. Life means you stay 'till you die.
------------------
Shoot straight & make big holes, regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center
[This message has been edited by 45King (edited August 08, 2000).]
I agree with 45King up and to the point of the death penalty. If a person who through agressive action takes another's life without just cause (self defense being that cause), then his life is forfit. That person by their actions have demonstrated that they will not live by the social compact.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
David Scott
New member
The first and greatest right is simply the right to exist. You cannot have a working civilization if someone has the right to take your life.* You therefore must have the right to defend your life, and that right is pointless unless you have the means to exercise it. That is the justiofication for RKBA.
*Note that the death penalty takes life but only under due process of law, another requirement for a working civilization.
*Note that the death penalty takes life but only under due process of law, another requirement for a working civilization.
David Roberson
New member
This right-to-life discussion is rapidly focusing only on the death penalty, but I guess that's OK.
While it is true that the death penalty is typically administered under something approaching due process of law, that's not good enough. I don't trust our government to deliver mail accurately, pave holes in the road efficiently, or protect me and my family adequately. Why should I trust it with something as important as life-or-death decisions for some citizens?
No, the answer is to abolish the death penalty. Those who demonstrate that they are so irredeemably evil that they shouldn't be allowed to live in our sociey should spend the rest of their lives in prison with no chance of parole.
Note that the government's use of the death penalty is a wholly different proposition from personal use of lethal force, which I believe to be an essential right.
While it is true that the death penalty is typically administered under something approaching due process of law, that's not good enough. I don't trust our government to deliver mail accurately, pave holes in the road efficiently, or protect me and my family adequately. Why should I trust it with something as important as life-or-death decisions for some citizens?
No, the answer is to abolish the death penalty. Those who demonstrate that they are so irredeemably evil that they shouldn't be allowed to live in our sociey should spend the rest of their lives in prison with no chance of parole.
Note that the government's use of the death penalty is a wholly different proposition from personal use of lethal force, which I believe to be an essential right.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Roberson:
While it is true that the death penalty is typically administered under something approaching due process of law, that's not good enough. I don't trust our government to deliver mail accurately, pave holes in the road efficiently, or protect me and my family adequately. Why should I trust it with something as important as life-or-death decisions for some citizens?[/quote]
Actually, as I understand it, that is why there are 12 peers (fellow citizens) sitting in a box trying the validity of the case.
WRT one's "right to life" I believe it to exist quite strongly, yet I cannot say that it is somehow absolute, as it can be suspended by one's own actions. This would include attempt to kill (violate others RTL), AND other grievous hostile intent (rape, torture, etc.)
"Where does this belief/philosophy come from?" Well, from a particular, well known trancendant moral law that I shall not elaborate upon any more except to say that it also includes provisions for a death penalty.
der Schueler
While it is true that the death penalty is typically administered under something approaching due process of law, that's not good enough. I don't trust our government to deliver mail accurately, pave holes in the road efficiently, or protect me and my family adequately. Why should I trust it with something as important as life-or-death decisions for some citizens?[/quote]
Actually, as I understand it, that is why there are 12 peers (fellow citizens) sitting in a box trying the validity of the case.
WRT one's "right to life" I believe it to exist quite strongly, yet I cannot say that it is somehow absolute, as it can be suspended by one's own actions. This would include attempt to kill (violate others RTL), AND other grievous hostile intent (rape, torture, etc.)
"Where does this belief/philosophy come from?" Well, from a particular, well known trancendant moral law that I shall not elaborate upon any more except to say that it also includes provisions for a death penalty.
der Schueler
Schueler: agreed, if we both understand this to mean the same person who is cited as the originator of rights in the US constitution.
This would also open another can of worms over the question of "when does a persons life begin?" (I'll personally go for "with conception").
Under these preconditions, one is no longer free to do as one pleases - there are consequences.
------------------
I see no elephant in my cellar. If there were an elephant in my cellar, I would surely see it. Therefore, there is no elephant in my cellar.
http://www.ety.com/tell/why.html
This would also open another can of worms over the question of "when does a persons life begin?" (I'll personally go for "with conception").
Under these preconditions, one is no longer free to do as one pleases - there are consequences.
------------------
I see no elephant in my cellar. If there were an elephant in my cellar, I would surely see it. Therefore, there is no elephant in my cellar.
http://www.ety.com/tell/why.html
Use the same source our Founding Fathers did.
Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries of the English Common Law.
I can't recall specifically what he said about the right to life being absolute but he did say that the right to self defense was absolute and that the RKBA was an auxilliary to that right.
A quick net search should work wonders.
Rick
------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries of the English Common Law.
I can't recall specifically what he said about the right to life being absolute but he did say that the right to self defense was absolute and that the RKBA was an auxilliary to that right.
A quick net search should work wonders.
Rick
------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
David Roberson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by schueler:
Actually, as I understand it, that is why there are 12 peers (fellow citizens) sitting in a box trying the validity of the case.[/quote]
You're not looking closely enough. Those 12 peers may indeed be trying the validity of the case. But it is the government that has specified the laws at issue in the case, and what the penalties are for breaking those laws. Depending on the jurisdiction, it is often a government official (the judge) who exercises discretion in sentencing. Even when sentences are imposed by a jury, government-established guidelines usually specifiy the range of available penalties. (Say, for instance, either life imprisonment or death in capital cases.) The fact that a jury participates in part of the legal process doesn't change the fact that the process itself is mainly carried out by the government.
Actually, as I understand it, that is why there are 12 peers (fellow citizens) sitting in a box trying the validity of the case.[/quote]
You're not looking closely enough. Those 12 peers may indeed be trying the validity of the case. But it is the government that has specified the laws at issue in the case, and what the penalties are for breaking those laws. Depending on the jurisdiction, it is often a government official (the judge) who exercises discretion in sentencing. Even when sentences are imposed by a jury, government-established guidelines usually specifiy the range of available penalties. (Say, for instance, either life imprisonment or death in capital cases.) The fact that a jury participates in part of the legal process doesn't change the fact that the process itself is mainly carried out by the government.
I believe in the (absolute) right to life. I'd read somewhere where life is a gift given and everything should be done to perserve that gift. As for the death penalty, not pro or con. For those for it, I believe if you're going to do it (the system), do it in a speedy manner, not 20 years after the fact. For those against, I believe that the person should stay for life in jail but also that they, not the taxpayers, pay 100% for their stay. Either though working at something or via their own family/friends. I'm sick and tired of paying the bills for cable, food, maint., etc.. of these people. As for forfeiting ones life, I think that 45King covered that one very well.
USP45usp
USP45usp
Keiller TN
New member
I'm not an authority on law, but life has great value and the death penalty for taking life verifies this. One of the oldest laws related to this is in Genesis 9:5,6 "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoever shedds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." The context is interesting. This is God speaking to Noah right after the Great flood all of mankind were drowned except the 8 on the ark. God means what he says. If you have never read this account, it is interesting reading. Start in Genesis 6 to get the whole story. Most cultures have a flood storys that have been passed down through the generations. They vary, of course, as stories will change over time, but the fact that they exist gives credence to the truth that there was, in deed, a Great Flood.
------------------
"Unless the Lord builds the house, they labour in vain that build it:
except the Lord guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain." (Psalm 127:1)
"Freedom is given to the human conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility."
(Alexander Solzhenitzyn)
------------------
"Unless the Lord builds the house, they labour in vain that build it:
except the Lord guards the city, the watchman stays awake in vain." (Psalm 127:1)
"Freedom is given to the human conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility."
(Alexander Solzhenitzyn)
David Scott
New member
Actually, I only mentioned the death penalty to point out the fact that civilization is it is now has a process for the legal taking of life. I didn't support or decry it, but in fact I do oppose the death penalty, except for traitors and spies in time of war.
MP Freeman
New member
Yes the right to life is absolute, IMO. And the right to liberty is absolute as well.
And most agree that one can lose both of these rights under certain circumstances.
People who deny others these rights are usually called tyrants.
And most agree that one can lose both of these rights under certain circumstances.
People who deny others these rights are usually called tyrants.
Robert Foote
New member
Not necessarily--circumstances alter cases and it depends on what principles are at stake. The classic example (especially here) is legitimate self-defense, in which even deadly force is justified to preserve one's own life. The theological rationale is that we have an obligation to preserve ourselves from aggression. Similar analogies are necessary medical procedures that could forseeably result in the death of an unborn child (or the mother), even though that is not the intention or desired result; also the theory of 'just war'.
So while it is not an 'absolute' under all circumstances, respect for life is a cardinal principal in Judaeo-Christian thought (I do not know with certainty how applicable this is to ALL other religions).
Needless to say there is a lot of slippage on this issue in the US today and we are paying a price for it.
------------------
So while it is not an 'absolute' under all circumstances, respect for life is a cardinal principal in Judaeo-Christian thought (I do not know with certainty how applicable this is to ALL other religions).
Needless to say there is a lot of slippage on this issue in the US today and we are paying a price for it.
------------------