Regardless of what it says in the Constitution, I don’t think there’s any demonstrable right for people to live and quite a bit of evidence that no such right exists. As can be expected, this comes from a discussion with a rabid libertarian and their absurd natural rights nonsense.
People die. Where is the right to life? We execute criminals. Where is the right to life? People are murdered every day. Where is the right to life?
I’ve made my thought clear in the past that rights are wholly human-invented and that we can change our minds pretty much any time we like. We’ve done it plenty of times in the past. There was a time in American history where blacks had few, if any, rights. Then we had a war and suddenly, blacks had rights! Amazing! There was a time in American history when women had few, if any rights. Then society decided that they should and passed the 19th Amendment. Fantastic! Of course, the libertarians would argue that they always had rights, we just didn’t recognize them, but that makes no sense whatsoever.
The image at the top of the page comes from a Christian t-shirt maker but I think it fits in quite nicely. Can someone please explain to me where this supposed “right to life” is self-evident? How about inalienable? I’ve already shown how it can be removed (alienable), thus the second is plainly incorrect. At best, believers can argue that they do not want it to be alienable, but wishes have no bearing whatsoever on reality. I’m not going to go into the absurd fantasies that the religious go through to justify a supernatural cause for such things except to say that they have to actually prove that such a deity actually exists and actually wants those rights to exist and until they can, I’m not going to take their word for it.
Of course, we as a society can grant a right to life, after all, society is where rights actually come from, but we also get to decide the extent and limitations of any rights we want to grant. We could, as a social unit, decide that life is the most important thing of all and follow more of a Jainist path. We could decide, as a social unit, that life is only important for humans and nothing else counts, in fact, that’s mostly what we do in the western world.
There might be flowery language in a document that was written 250 years ago but that doesn’t necessarily mean that said document accurately describes the rights that we allow in the modern world. Almost certainly, society has changed over the centuries and our views today do not necessarily reflect what our founding fathers might have wished for.
What this all comes down to is telling the difference between someone’s belief that things ought to be a certain way and their claims that things actually are a certain way. I can appreciate people wishing for change, I’m down with that, but not when one’s only argument for change is that things are actually already different, so there. Let’s deal with things on a rational level instead of pretending that magically, some things are true because we wish that they were.
It’s not necessarily true.