Text 10951, 78 rader
Skriven 2013-10-24 23:46:26 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 10932 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: APODs
=============
Hello David,

 LL>> The right to life is not just a right, but an inalienable right.

 DD>> inalienable
 DD>> ɪnˈeɪlɪÉÖnÉÖb(ÉÖ)l
 DD>> adjective
 DD>> 1. not subject to being taken away from or given away by the
 DD>> possessor.
 DD>> "the shareholders have the inalienable right to dismiss directors"

 DD>> I don't think so - people have their life taken from the all of the
 DD>> time (only once per person), some even have it taken by the state.

 LL>> You mean to tell me that Thomas Jefferson was *WRONG*???

DD>What did he say?

It is not so much what he said, but what he wrote.  And what Thomas
Jefferson wrote was most certain *NOT* inalienable rights.  Go ahead.
Read the text of the Declaration of Independence.  It's all there
for all to see -

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness."

DD>If he was a human then no doubt he was subject to human
DD>error (unlike the pope - but that is a different story).

Like all men, the pope claims to be infallible.  But let's be
real.  When has the woman (or significant other) you love ever
been wrong?

 DD>> Some give their life for the state (or the stripy rag).....

 LL>> "Give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, American patriot

DD>What did he get? - Ah, I see that he got death. That can happen when
DD>you back people into a corner.

Well, at least he was not a horse thief like Paul Revere.

 DD>> There are NO inalienable rights - just privileges granted by the
 DD>> regime of the day.

 LL>> That's what the King of England thought - until the American colonists
 LL>> staged a successful revolution against his rule.

DD>Even in the US today peoples' "inalienable right to life" is taken
DD>away from them.

Most folks do not realize what the difference is between inalienable
rights and unalienable rights.  The two are not the same.  Inalienable
rights can be defined as being "rights which are not capable of being
surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing
such rights."  Unalienable rights can be defined as being "the state
of a thing or right which cannot be sold."  (Definitions are from
gemworld.com)

Thomas Jefferson was very deliberate in his choice of words.
That is why he wrote "unalienable rights" that are "endowed by
their Creator" - along with limited rights belonging to the
government with the "consent of the governed".

DD>If the regime of the day passes legislation that you may not
DD>carry a firearm on a domestic flight then that "right " is taken
DD>away too.

Last week, NBA basketball legend Bill Russell tried to board an
airplane with a loaded firearm, but was caught and arrested before
he could do a 9/11 ...

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)