Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!liz From: liz@umcp-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: The Nature of Rights Message-ID: <698@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Jul-83 00:37:24 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.698 Posted: Mon Jul 11 00:37:24 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Jul-83 20:44:48 EDT References: <501@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <99@ucbvax.UUCP> Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept. Lines: 33 From: WayneLiz seems to think that the right to property is the most fundamental right one can possess, as the right to life is derived from it (I have a right to live as my life is my property). >Sigh!< I was responding to another person's article who did assume that all rights were derived from property rights and arguing pro-choice on the abortion issue. I was simply responding on his grounds. If you do assume property rights are fundamental and that your body is included, I was just pointing out that the unborn's body was the thing being destroyed in an abortion... (The original article was just posted to net.religion but with a request that all responses be posted to net.philosophy.) You bring up the issue of how rights are derived. The human rights issue is a very important one in our society -- what makes us so sure that they're correct? Why don't animals have the same rights? (what is the justification for treating animals differently?) Is it that they work? If so, how do we evaluate whether they work? Since I believe in God and that rights are God-given, I don't worry about this issue, but since many of you don't, I'd be interested in how you look at this. It could be that there is an obvious answer that I haven't thought of simply because I don't concern myself a lot. If there is, please don't flood the list with the same response repeated a lot!! -- -Liz Allen ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz (Usenet) liz.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay (Arpanet)