How To Determine "Rights", Common Political Issues

[Jzyehoshua]

A good rule of thumb for determining where a person’s rights begin and end, in my personal opinion, is the saying “Your right to throw a punch stops where the other person’s nose begins.”

Why is abortion controversial? Because the “right” contested is that to kill another human being. Should any person ever have the “right” to kill someone else? Perhaps the awful cases in the news of parents murdering their children even after birth is evidence of how such a mindset is affecting our society.

Partial birth abortion, or late term abortion, can sometimes result in babies born alive after botched abortions. Until this past year the law said that legally those babies could be left to starve to death on hospital beds in back rooms. Yet abortionists still defended this practice, making evident the truly selfish evil of their motives.

Likewise with homosexuality. Homosexuals already have the right to live as they please in the privacy of their own homes. We should not take that right away from them, for God gave them free will concerning it, and we should not police their private actions so long as they don’t harm others.

However, homosexual marriage is controversial because homosexuals, already able to live sexually as they please in the privacy of their own homes, seek the “right” to force us as a nation to recognize their unions as morally acceptable and conscionable.

Once something so enters the public domain, it affects all who are subjected to it, which is also why there should be limits on the public media. It is why pornography is controversial, because in making it publicly accessible, it affects the rights of schoolchildren who can inadvertently come across it on school computers, and it affects the rights of parents who don’t want their children to see such horrible things.

Therefore, we can personally believe that homosexuality and pornography are wrong, but should not stop others from engaging in such activities in the privacy of their own homes. Since God gave them free will, who are we to deprive them of it? It is their right.

However, once it enters the public domain, it affects our rights and the rights of others. And once it affects the rights of others, that is where the rights in question should stop.

Slavery and racism affect the rights of others. That is why they are wrong. Our rights should not include the right to infringe upon the rights of others.

 

[markomalley]

A good rule of thumb for determining where a person’s rights begin and end, in my personal opinion, is the saying “Your right to throw a punch stops where the other person’s nose begins.”

OK, good start.

Why is abortion controversial? Because the “right” contested is that to kill another human being. Should any person ever have the “right” to kill someone else? Perhaps the awful cases in the news of parents murdering their children even after birth is evidence of how such a mindset is affecting our society.

Partial birth abortion, or late term abortion, can sometimes result in babies born alive after botched abortions. Until this past year the law said that legally those babies could be left to starve to death on hospital beds in back rooms. Yet abortionists still defended this practice, making evident the truly selfish evil of their motives.

Very true point. That is the main point behind my opposition to abortion: it impacts the right of another being to live.

Likewise with homosexuality. Homosexuals already have the right to live as they please in the privacy of their own homes. We should not take that right away from them, for God gave them free will concerning it, and we should not police their private actions so long as they don’t harm others.

However, homosexual marriage is controversial because homosexuals, already able to live sexually as they please in the privacy of their own homes, seek the “right” to force us as a nation to recognize their unions as morally acceptable and conscionable.

Your theory falls apart, here, though. While I agree with you on the enforcement aspect of this issue: we shouldn’t be spying on people and encroaching upon their privacy, if the behavior receives state sanction in the privacy of one’s own home, then, by the interpretation of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, it receives sanction for public behavior, as well.

In other words, if homosexual behavior, in of itself, is legal in private, it needs to be legal in public, as well.

(Note: the above is not a statement against homosexual individuals…just the behaviors associated with that tendency)

Once something so enters the public domain, it affects all who are subjected to it, which is also why there should be limits on the public media. It is why pornography is controversial, because in making it publicly accessible, it affects the rights of schoolchildren who can inadvertently come across it on school computers, and it affects the rights of parents who don’t want their children to see such horrible things.

Porno is another example: porno objectifies everybody who is involved with it, from the actors, to the production staff, to the viewers. It is not a victimless crime…EVERYBODY involved in ANY way is a victim of it.

Therefore, we can personally believe that homosexuality and pornography are wrong, but should not stop others from engaging in such activities in the privacy of their own homes. Since God gave them free will, who are we to deprive them of it? It is their right.

See above comments.

However, once it enters the public domain, it affects our rights and the rights of others. And once it affects the rights of others, that is where the rights in question should stop.

Slavery and racism affect the rights of others. That is why they are wrong. Our rights should not include the right to infringe upon the rights of others.

See above comments. I agree, for the most part, with your basic premise. However, if you really look at it, a lot of things that are advertised as “victimless” really aren’t.

 

[mlchance]

In other words, if homosexual behavior, in of itself, is legal in private, it needs to be legal in public, as well.

This doesn’t follow at all. There are things one is permitted to do in private that would lead to legal trouble in public. Examples should be obvious.

The basis for our authentic rights is natural law. One doesn’t have a right to abortion because killing one’s child violates natural law. Likewise, one doesn’t have a right to marry someone of the same gender.

The government can choose to grant privileges where no actual right for that privilege exists, but the wisdom of doing so is highly suspect.

– Mark L. Chance.