Date: Fri, 13.11.20 06:07
By: Lee Lofaso to Alan Ianson on Mon Nov 02 2020 12:31 pm
> Hello Alan,
> >BH>What about the rights of the unborn as a human being?
> >I think there are rights all around including the woman who needs to make
> > the decision to abort a pregnancy are not.
> In Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many other Islamic countries, women
> have no rights to abortion - or many other rights for that matter.
> So who gets to decide what rights are, and who is deserving to
> have said rights?
> You're fired, Donald!
I guess that depends on who you ask, but I would answer that everyone deserves
certain rights and that it is a damn shame that some people do not. Equality
would be one of those universal rights in my perfect world. It would not be
acceptable to discriminate against anyone, anywhere in the world. Obviously
there's a need for common sense like if a big fat man applied to be an
attendant on an airplane or if an old man with a bad back applied for a very
physically demanding occupation - so you cannot call those things
discrimination - that's more a case of the individual just not being a good fit
for the job and there needs to be a practical allowance for that. However
nobody should be treated differently because of their skin color, sexual
orientation, gender itself, religion, etc.
I think a basic rule of thumb for what's allowed in society should tie back to
whether or not the action in question harms another person - and since we've
been on the topic, no, I'm not counting a fetus as a person. I support law
that recognizes the infant as a person once its taken it's first breath.
Generally speaking, I believe people should have the right (legally speaking)
to cause harm to themselves but not in any significant capacity to others. I
say significant capacity because of the argument that, say, calling someone a
hurtful name could be defined as causing them harm - and again that's another
example of something I feel is immoral and should be looked down upon but
should not be made illegal. We should try to err on the side of allowing
people as much personal freedom as possible within the constraints of stopping
them from causing notable harm to others.
With regard to who gets to make the rules, well that's a bit tougher to answer.
Ultimately the people should make the rules - as in democracy - but obviously
our current system is far from perfect. I wish we all got to vote on far more
of the big issues that come up. Imagine if all Americans, for example, could
log onto a special government website and vote on key issues like which
proposed COVID stimulus package to pass (or whether to pass one at all for that
matter). People could also vote on more localized issues based on where they
live - state government, even local government like whether to approve a
proposed public school budget. We could vote on everything from national law
down to issues that affect just the town we live in. I think that would be
neat! Perhaps a short list of issues to vote on could be submitted at each
level of government - national, state, and local - and then citizens have one
month to vote. Then next month you do it again. I fear anything more than a
few key issues at each level, once a month, would become way too daunting
really fast though! Oh, and obviously there should be retained certain core
laws of the land and rights of the individual that cannot ever be usurped by
vote. For example, you cannot let the people vote that it's now legal to shoot
and kill anyone they want on Wednesdays
--- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
* Origin: Battlestar BBS : battlestarbbs.dyndns.org (1:129/165)