From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 13:30:24 MST
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 11:04:33AM -0800, R. Coyote wrote:
> The BOR is not a declaration of positive rights, and it does not say "and
> that's all" at the end.
>
> it is a limitation on government power.
>
> we do not need to have the right to morphological freedom explicitly
> declared, we only need to assert it.
Morphological freedom is a negative right, saying that nobody is allowed to
infringe on our right to change (or keep) our bodies. It doesn't involve
demanding government subsidized surgery, but rather that we should be free
to seek out treatments if they are available.
Just asserting a right is part of getting it accepted (if you can formulate
a negative right you meet at least one precondition to be eligible to get
it), but there is plenty of politicking involved. After all, many civil
rights had to be asserted very strongly for a long time against harsh
opposition to become regarded as real rights that society and the law
should uphold.
> It appears that this proposed "law" only limits what a Doctor can do, not
> what the recipient can do.
Note the way it is promoted: by showing the eerie face of somebody who took
the trouble to reptilify themself. It is based on the "Yuck! Something
other! Get rid of it!" reflex many people have. If it is unchallenged, it
will make it hard to do other, more relevant stuff in the future.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 02 2003 - 13:35:01 MST