Question about abortion and self-ownership

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by 7960

If the first amendment was repealed tomorrow it would only be a matter of time before newspapers and speech was limited. "Natural law" doesn't mean shit if there's no "man's law" to back it up.

even if some group takes away your 'man-given right' to speech, you can still speak, right? If you can still speak, and people can still hear you, you still have 'freedom of speech' no matter what this group. This is a severely lopsided battle because it is the natural order which gives people the ability to speak, hear, and share ideas. Even with threats of severe consequences (execution, cutting tongues etc), they couldn't silence everyone. I wonder if, at some point, britain is going to self-destruct into a totalitarian society as their government struggles to control free expression?

[7960]

Originally Posted by R-Type

even if some group takes away your 'man-given right' to speech, you can still speak, right? If you can still speak, and people can still hear you, you still have 'freedom of speech' no matter what this group.

I wouldn't say you have "freedom of speech" if exercising that "freedom" meant jail. I have freedom of speech because i can stand on a street and advocate just about whatever I want. Brits do not because if they stand on the street and advocate for the 'wrong' thing then they'll go to jail.

You can't really call it a freedom if you'll get arrested and jailed for doing it.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by 7960

I wouldn't say you have "freedom of speech" if exercising that "freedom" meant jail. I have freedom of speech because i can stand on a street and advocate just about whatever I want. Brits do not because if they stand on the street and advocate for the 'wrong' thing then they'll go to jail.

You can't really call it a freedom if you'll get arrested and jailed for doing it.

They might be able to mute the effectiveness, but not the ability, which is really what they WANT. The UK could also pass a law saying it's illegal to breathe without a license, but they won't get real far enforcing compliance. Why? Because it's a natural function. The more basic something is to existence, the harder it is for others to avoid and/or control. We're already learning this about sex, to the chagrin of the evangelicals, because it's almost impossible to enforce sexual morality for similar reasons. At some point, people are going to do what they're going to do, no matter how dire the manmade threat is.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I'm for legal abortions and all drugs legalized.

I'm for assisted suicide and the death penalty as well. I'm the "culture of death" you hear the conservatives crying about.

As am I.

[7960]

Originally Posted by R-Type

They might be able to mute the effectiveness, but not the ability, which is really what they WANT. The UK could also pass a law saying it's illegal to breathe without a license, but they won't get real far enforcing compliance. Why? Because it's a natural function.

Then you really don't know what the word "right" means. "Freedom of speech" and "ability to speak" are not synonymous.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by 7960

Then you really don't know what the word "right" means. "Freedom of speech" and "ability to speak" are not synonymous.

I understand the definitions. I just don't think a definitional argument is a good one to make since we're debating whether manmade political constructs trump nature. Within the context of your definitions, you're correct, but I disagree on the minimum amount of enforcement required to truely make this happen. If it's not 100% universal at all times, then nature wins. My breathing example was an attempt to illustrate this.

[7960]

Originally Posted by R-Type

I understand the definitions. I just don't think a definitional argument is a good one to make since we're debating whether manmade political constructs trump nature. Within the context of your definitions, you're correct, but I disagree on the minimum amount of enforcement required to truely make this happen. If it's not 100% universal at all times, then nature wins. My breathing example was an attempt to illustrate this.

Using your example, do you have "freedom to breathe" if the very first time you do it I put you in jail? You're still "free to breathe" right?

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by 7960

Using your example, do you have "freedom to breathe" if the very first time you do it I put you in jail? You're still "free to breathe" right?

Yup. I'm still breathing sitting in my prison cell, right? Short of committing murder, there's nothing the state could do to stop me.

[7960]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Yup. I'm still breathing sitting in my prison cell, right? Short of committing murder, there's nothing the state could do to stop me.

Then you're not making a distinction between ability and freedom so this conversation is dumb. Next time you disagree with the govt and they throw you in solitary confinement, you keep right on believing you still have "freedom of speech" because they didn't cut your vocal chords .

[Kytro]

A right is a protected ability