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: Wayne 

	Liz 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)