Zero Powers wrote:
>
> >From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com>
>
> >From: "Russell Blackford" <RussellBlackford@bigpond.com>
> > > *What* inalienable right to procreate?
> >
> >Good question. In the US, a man was recently ordered by a court of law not
> >to
> >father any more children.
>
> I hate to even discuss Constitutionally inalienable rights because of the
> tendency it has to compel certain folks to fly into a "gun rights" frenzy.
> But I will say this: if a right is only inalienable if it cannot be legally
> abridged under any circumstance, then there is no such beast. After all, I
> think *everyone* would agree that there exists an inalienable right to life.
> Not too long ago one Timothy McVeigh had his right to life, well, severely
> abridged.
The fault in your logic is that the damn fools can pass a law banning
any activity. Laws do not usurp rights. Your logic is backward.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT