Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Jul 2001 04:11:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
489 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > What I was trying to get at was the notion that some folks have that people
> > have the *right* to have progeny even if they cannot properly be parents
> > (can't support, are unfit, or are genetically at risk).
>
> Yes, I know what you mean but I am forced to maintain that in the basic
> biological sense all living beings have the natural right of reproduction,
> whether they are fit as a fiddle or severely genetically abnormal or
> diseased.
<snipped all the rest because I'm not disagreeing with it>
I'm afraid I am still "stuck" on rights. (and I've been stuck on them
before) What are rights? How do you know if you have them? Let's talk about
organisms other than man for a bit.
I'm in the camp that doesn't see bacteria as having rights, per se. Bacteria
have an *imperative* to reproduce, it is genetically programmed into them.
But I am not sure I'd speak of them having rights to reproduce. Do you? Why
so? That is, what do you mean by "right" in this case? How do you determine
what rights are? You could argue that they have the right to *try* to live,
but in an ecosystem, other organisms tend to fight back if they are disease
causing bacteria and that tends to "infringe" on their right to live and
reproduce.
I'm in the camp that doesn't see wild hares as having rights, per se. Again,
they're part of an ecosystem and they will strive to live, fight off
predators and reproduce, but I'm again not sure that they have rights.
Again, do you agree or disagree? How do you determine the rights? How is the
right of the rabbit to have progeny "different" than the right of the coyote
to eat those progeny? Coyotes eat meat, it is programmed into them. What
says that the rabbit's rights are better or worse than the coyote's?
If you say, "well, these are competing rights, both the coyote and rabbit
have rights but one will prevail" then I would tend to counter with these
not being rights at all, really. The right that they both have is the right
to strive to succeed, not the right to ACTUALLY succeed. Rights seem like
they ought to be absolutes. Further, rights seem like something that only
thinking reasoning moral creatures can even *have* in the first place.
Tying it back to people, if we agree that rights have to be absolute (that
is, my right to reproduce, if such were a right, cannot interfere with the
rights of others to do so or to do things) there seems to be a contradiction
in assigning anyone an unfettered (that is, without regard to the inputs
needed to support progeny) right to reproduce. Assigning someone that right
seems likely to cause infringment on the rights of others
So does that mean that you see rights as relative, or that there's a flaw in
my analysis or something else?
(this ties into why we have the right to the pursuit of happiness, rather
than the right to happiness)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) I think "rights" came along after bouts of give and take, either within nature or within society, until equilibrium (long or short term) was achieved. I think all "rights" thus far in human society were preceeded by violence until it became so (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) I think that the notion of rights is wholly a construct of man. You know you have a right when the other humans around you generally agree that you do and respect that right. The rights of people are not innate and they have been and will (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) Yes, I know what you mean but I am forced to maintain that in the basic biological sense all living beings have the natural right of reproduction, whether they are fit as a fiddle or severely genetically abnormal or diseased. BUT here's the (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
