Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TKDietz
Rights and duties are not seperable. They are distinct: there is a right to do this, that comes with a duty to do that. But you do not have a "right", without some associated and inseperable duty.

I put no beleifs into Jefferson's head as you seem to have done. The historical record, iirc and fwiw, shows that Jefferson was Christian at times and Diest at times. What I wrote of "godly" duties was not Christian, it is more fundamental.

The Declaration is signed by many, Jefferson may have been its editor and main author, he is not the sole author, the expressions and statements in it represent a consensus. They represent the consensus of legal, ethical and philosophical thought at the time of Revolution and the Constitution. The ideas of fidelity to and foundation in G-d's law is found in them and in such primal referenece sources of that time as Blackstone.

Those were times when hebrew was taught at the Colleges as a basic requirment. You live and speak from a later timte when there is no hebrew, nor even greek, nor even latin, were even the basic english of college graudates suffers from lack of teaching.

Your anger is found in that I think, you scream out of being tossed in with the fallen and ignorant in this generation.

938 posted on 01/18/2006 4:57:41 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 905 | View Replies ]


To: bvw
I'm not angry, I just strongly disagree. I do not agree that rights always carry with them duties. Legal rights and duties are two separate and distinct things. You have a right to freedom of speech, but no duty to say anything. You have a right to testify at a trial when you are accused of a crime, but no duty to testify. You have a right to bear arms, but within that right is no duty to bear arms. You have the right to peaceably assemble, but no duty to assemble.

You are making a big jump. What you are saying is that because you have a legal right to life, that you have a legal duty to live. That's just wrong. Suicide is against the law most places, but that is not because we have a right to life. It's against the law because suicide is harmful to those left behind, especially those to whom you owe obligations of care or monetary or contractual obligations. It's also harmful to those who have to clean up after you, bury you, and so on. And it's also illegal because people tend to believe for religious reasons that it is wrong.

We all have rights. We own those rights. They are ours. We can assert them or we can waive them, but no one is supposed to be able to take them away from us, not without due process of law at least. This assisted suicide thing is entirely different then something like abortion. Abortion impinges on the right of someone to live, without their consent. This person whose life is taken is not given the chance to defend their right to life. There is no hearing, no due process of law. A person who commits suicide though is giving up their right to live. They waive it. It seems that Oregon's law requires that they do so knowingly and voluntarily. Perhaps they will burn in Hell for making that choice, but that is between them and God.
970 posted on 01/18/2006 8:59:59 AM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 938 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson