Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

smooth · 11-16-2004, 04:18 AM

Essentializing positions polarizes oppositional viewpoints and silences people the categories purport to represent.

There is at least one more viewpoint (without precluding others from voicing their stance): that human beings do not have inaliable rights to life. That, as far as our law is concerned, only US citizens have inaliable rights. Or, more accurately, our law only must concern itself with the rights of its citizens, and quite possibly when the rights of citizens conflict with the rights of a non-citizen, the former takes precedence.

Thus, a coherent argument could be made that a baby, irrespective of the issue of life, does not deserve or have standing to certain inaliable rights that its mother has--until it comes out of the birth canal and becomes a citizen.

Similarly, the government can make a case that it has an interest in preventing its own citizens from murdering anything--citizen or not. The interest does not hinge on protecting the rights of an unborn fetus, citizen or not, but rather on protecting the citizen from committing an act of violence against another entity without state sanction.

We must recognize a few legal precepts, I think, to fully grasp how this might play out.

First: The state claims full monopoly of violence over its citizenry and those within its borders. We can trace the geneology of anti-violence laws to this concept.

Second: The capitalist state has a self-serving interest in protecting personal rights of ownership. The results of this have far greater implications than I want to explain in this minor posting. But suffice it to say that the concept of individual rights is essential to creating a belief and economic system that reproduces the asymetric interactions between capitalists and workers.

11-16-2004, 04:18 AM	#54 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Essentializing positions polarizes oppositional viewpoints and silences people the categories purport to represent. There is at least one more viewpoint (without precluding others from voicing their stance): that human beings do not have inaliable rights to life. That, as far as our law is concerned, only US citizens have inaliable rights. Or, more accurately, our law only must concern itself with the rights of its citizens, and quite possibly when the rights of citizens conflict with the rights of a non-citizen, the former takes precedence. Thus, a coherent argument could be made that a baby, irrespective of the issue of life, does not deserve or have standing to certain inaliable rights that its mother has--until it comes out of the birth canal and becomes a citizen. Similarly, the government can make a case that it has an interest in preventing its own citizens from murdering anything--citizen or not. The interest does not hinge on protecting the rights of an unborn fetus, citizen or not, but rather on protecting the citizen from committing an act of violence against another entity without state sanction. We must recognize a few legal precepts, I think, to fully grasp how this might play out. First: The state claims full monopoly of violence over its citizenry and those within its borders. We can trace the geneology of anti-violence laws to this concept. Second: The capitalist state has a self-serving interest in protecting personal rights of ownership. The results of this have far greater implications than I want to explain in this minor posting. But suffice it to say that the concept of individual rights is essential to creating a belief and economic system that reproduces the asymetric interactions between capitalists and workers. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman