The significance of rights.

Because some Christians are ignorant to reality.

 

Why are you unable to read the responses to your repeated questions????

 

How are they ignorant of reality?

 

I have not used a Condom since 1995 but they had just come out with Ramses Xtra and I did try them as I was dating a very pretty red head at the time.

I only used them twice as she quickly had her Birth Control Rx filled but I remember that although they were better fitting than smaller condoms they had a tendency to ROLL UP the shaft as they had taken circumference into account but had NOT changed the damn LENGTH of the things.

AboveAlpha

 

I agree on the education and widely availability of contraceptives. I'd even like to see them in high schools combined with early education on sex

- - - Updated - - -

Religion would play a role in this I'm sure, other then that I can not honestly give you an answer

 

I wish humor could be heard over the Internet. lol

 

You think that's funny huh? LOL!!!

Well...if it was YOU and your body cavity that the damn thing was pushed deep into as it rolled off me YOU would not think it was so funny!! LOL!!!

Actually...it was not so funny for me either.

I pulled out only to see my RAINCOAT was MISSING...so for a couple of seconds I was wrestling with the reality and decision of whether I should do the right thing and stop and TELL HER it had gone AWOL....or risk pushing it even deeper and possibly losing it forever just because I didn't want to stop!! LOL!!

I did the right thing.

AboveAlpha

 

omg that's awful. xD

But for future reference you can't actually lose anything in the vagina. Course I don't know if that's true or not since I saw it in a 'facts about vaginas' video on YouTube. lmao

 

Well....I was told that there is a dead gerbil decaying in Richard Gere's Colon but that is not the same thing! LOL!!

Seriously though....it did not come out easy.

AboveAlpha

 

When you keep asking the same questions over and over again when you've already gotten the answers a dozen times or more it looks like you're trolling.

 

Not completely off your rocker but slightly mislead.

The definition of Inalienable does not state that the US Constitution "grants" Inalienable Rights but instead that it "guarentees" certain Inalienable Rights of the Person. Inalienable Rights exist regardless of whether the US Constitution enumerates them or not and, we can note, that the US Constitution was once used to violate our Inalienable Rights when it ratified the 18th Amendment (alcohol prohibition).

http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment18/amendment.html

"Individual" refers to "Individual Person" in the definition (i.e. it doesn't refer to an "individual" cow for example). Inalienable Rights exist outside of the context of government and statutory law. They are "inherent in the 'individual' person (self)" as my criteria establishes. Congress cannot "create" an Inalienable Rights but can recognize and protect it or it can violate that Inalienable Right but does so in violation of the Constitution even if it's not an enumerated Right (protected by the 9th Amendment). Congress, based upon compelling arguments can limit our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights but logically only to the extent to necessary as established by the compelling argument.

The 10th Amendment does not refer to Rights but instead refers to "powers" of the federal government, the State government, and the People. The "powers" of the Person are limited to their exercising of their Inalienable Rights and they can only delegate "powers" to the "State" based upon their Inalienable Rights (and do so with their respective State Constitutions). The States obtain their powers from the powers granted to it by the People based upon the People exercising their Inalienable Rights. The federal government obtains it's powers from the States that obtain their powers from the people exercising their Inalienable Rights as a Person.

Logically the People cannot grant a "power" to the "state" that they don't have based upon Exercising their Inalienable Rights and the "states" cannot grant a "power" to the federal government that the people have not first granted to it. It is the logical flow of delegation of authority established by Exercising the Inalienable Rights of the Person based upon the voluntary consent of the Individual persons in society.

Earlier I mentioned that the 18th Amendment violated our Inalienable Rights because, based upon our Individual (personal) Inalienable Rigths, we don't have the "power" to prohibit someone else from consuming what they choose to consume. That is the same problem we have with the drug prohibition laws. We can limit the transportation and commercial sales of a substance like marijuana but we don't have an Inalienable Right to prohibit a person from growing marijuana in a garden and then smoking it. We are violating their Inalienable Right of Liberty by prohibiting them from growing a (natural) plant and then consuming it themselves. We can limit them by not allowing them to sell it to another person though. That is not a violation of their Inalienable Right of Liberty but instead merely a limited infringement upon their Freedom to Exercise their Inalienable Right under the commerce clause of the US Constitution (if it crosses state lines) or State law.

This is where I have a problem with "punishment" for criminal offenses especially "caplital punishment" because "punishment" is an act of revenge and the "person" does not have an Inalienable Right of Revenge. We do have an Inalienable Right of Self-defense Against Acts of Aggression which can be applied when we address "incarceration" to protect ourselves from the acts of a person that has been "proven" to commit acts of aggression against us as this is providing a "protection" of our Inalienable Rights but we do not have the "power" to extract "revenge" by punishing a person. "Prortections v Punishment" is a huge issue. We can also note that "incarceration" does not violate the Right of Liberty of the person but does impose a limitation upon their Freedom to Exercise their Inalienable Right of Liberty. Capital punishment violates the Right to Life and is not merely a limitation upon the Person's "Freedom to Exercise their Inalienable Right to Life."

 

So you think people should have the right to consume whatever they wish, as long as they keep it to themselves? You also think people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as nobody else is involved?
Am I reading this correctly. So basically as long as a person is in a bubble and has no interaction with anyone else they are free to do whatever they want? I can live with that. Only thing is 99.999999% of the population interacts with someone else and 99.999999% of what we do affects someone else, even if you have no interaction with anyone else. Prohibition laws did not violate any rights, as drinking alcohol, or smoking cigarettes is not a right, but a privilege, one that can be taken away for any, or no reason at all. Plus drinking affects more then just the person involved. If prohibition violated a right, what about NYC laws that dictate the size of sugary drinks we can purchase? Or smoking ban laws? You stated drug laws violate our right to consume what we wish as well. Drugs are the same as alcohol(technically a drug too) in that even if you grow it yourself and consume it privately others will be affected the moment you interact with someone while under the influence.
Also you mention right to life. So are you saying that the right to live is an inalienable right? But restrictions can be put in place to limit what you can do with that life?

 

The fact that there is "interaction" is not a criteria. An inalienable Right cannot infringe upon another person's Inalienable Rights by definition. A person may have an inalienable Right but that does not authorize them to violate the Inalienable Rights of another person by exercising their inalienable right. If a person smokes pot or drinks alcohol but doesn't allow that to endanger another person, which would be an act of aggression against the other person, then they are merely exercising their Inalienable Right of Liberty by smoking pot or drinking alcohol. If, on the other hand they beat their wife of drive on the roads drunk then their actions violate the Rights of Others. Two completely different issues.

This is an "abortion" thread and a person has an Inalienable Right to believe whatever they damn well choose to believe related to abortion. They do not have a "Right" to impose their beliefs upon others under the law as that violates the equal Right of another person to believe what they choose to believe related to abortion and take action on their belief. Remember that the "preborn" is not a "person" and even if "personhood" was established by a Constitutional Amendment the "preborn" would not have any Rights that conflict with the Rights of the pre-established Rights of the Woman. At best we could establish limitations upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Rights of both the "preborn" and the "woman" related to their individual Inalienable Rights to resolve the paradox that exists.

In theory yes but I don't know how that can be pragmatically accomplished. Either a person is "alive" or they are "not alive" which is the paradox we have even if we were to establish the "personhood" of the "preborn" by US Constitution precedent. Because Inalienable Rights exist for the "individual person" the actual criteria for "personhood" of the "preborn" would logically be granted at "natural viability" because the fetus can live outside of the woman's body unassisted at that point of development. It couldn't be recognized sooner than that because the fetus would not be an "individual person" prior to viabily as it could not naturally survive.

As noted the issue of "personhood" for the preborn is more than a little complex but there are some deductions we can make such as the zygote, embryo and fetus prior to natural viability cannot be "persons" because they cannot be considered to be sovereign individual persons during that stage of development and Inalienable Rights only exist for sovereign individual persons.

 

A fetus is a human being, and according to Merriam Webster, the definition of a person is a human being.

 

A dictionary provides the common definition and not the legal definition of a word. If enough people called a tulip a rose over time then eventually the dictionary would call a tulip a rose. It wouldn't change the scientific name of a tulip from Tulipa (tulip) to Rosaceae (rose).

We're concerned with the Constitutional definition of "person" as it applies the the Inalienable Rights of the Person. That is not based upon the term "human being" which is not used in the Constitution and there are no "human being" protections enunumerated in the US Constitution. Only "People/Persons" are protected and recognized as having Inalienable Rights in both polititical philosophy and the law.