A Moral Dilemma For Pro-Choice Liberals?

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Panda,

The U.S agreed to be binding by these laws when it signed the UDHR. No one forced them to, but your government agrees to operate with these as basic laws. Therefore they must allow you the right to privacy.

I think we have a two fold concept. A nation signing treaties with another nation. In which the treaty would enatil activities between the two nations (or how many other nations) And a nation signing a treaty that would in effect run the internal affairs of a nation. I believe that that violates our sovereignty and self-government. And I am glad that we seem to ignore such things.

The 'right to privacy' (to my knowledge) was based on the US Constitution (even if it was based on the "penumbras" and "emanations") when it was created by the Supreme Court and not based on the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.

I think it protects you from people spreading information about you for the purpose of harming you. Information which they are not meant to know about, which is protected by your right to privacy.

Does that entail Americans wanting Usama bin Laden dead? Could Americans be prosecuted for spreading information that is meant to harm UBL?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

You are assuming that I see the federal govt responsible for all of this. You know if the federal govt would just stop mandating abstinence only sex ed in school, that would be a huge improvement then and there. See, that's a case of smaller govt helping to make abortion obsolete.

What other small government solutions do you propose to make abortion obsolete?

They've reversed themselves in the past. I'll leave it to them to rationalize their decisions.

So, it is okay to suggest that their certain actions of the Supreme Court are unconstitutional. Or else how would cases get to the Supreme Court that end up in the court reversing themselves?

 

[Panda]

I think we have a two fold concept. A nation signing treaties with another nation. In which the treaty would entail activities between the two nations (or how many other nations) And a nation signing a treaty that would in effect run the internal affairs of a nation. I believe that that violates our sovereignty and self-government. And I am glad that we seem to ignore such things.

The 'right to privacy' (to my knowledge) was based on the US Constitution (even if it was based on the "penumbras" and "emanations") when it was created by the Supreme Court and not based on the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.

The fact is you have the right to privacy and your government guarantees it to all citizens. You can not argue with this as it is part of US law and a fact.

Does that entail Americans wanting Usama bin Laden dead? Could Americans be prosecuted for spreading information that is meant to harm UBL?

I honestly do not know. I would not think so as article 30 states

Article 30.

• Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Panda,

The fact is you have the right to privacy and your government guarantees it to all citizens. You can not argue with this as it is part of US law and a fact.

But it is not based on the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, wasn't that your point?

I honestly do not know. I would not think so as article 30 states

Quote:
Article 30.

• Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein

Wait, aren't some Americans advocating that UBL be killed? Wouldn't that violate his basic human right to privacy or reputation or whatever?

 

[Panda]

But it is not based on the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, wasn't that your point?

No, you were trying to say there is no right to privacy in the U.S because the Constitution doesn't state it. I was telling you that there is a right to privacy, where it comes from is irrelevant

Wait, aren't some Americans advocating that UBL be killed? Wouldn't that violate his basic human right to privacy or reputation or whatever?

I'm not even going to answer that. Read your human rights.

 

[MaddLlama]

I think I can sum up this whole thread in one statement:

"Prove to me that I'm wrong, but I won't be listening!!"

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Panda,

No, you were trying to say there is no right to privacy in the U.S because the Constitution doesn't state it. I was telling you that there is a right to privacy, where it comes from is irrelevant

I think the source is very relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Stocks
Wait, aren't some Americans advocating that UBL be killed? Wouldn't that violate his basic human right to privacy or reputation or whatever?

I'm not even going to answer that. Read your human rights.

So the whole notion of a human right protecting your honor and reputation is bunk.

 

[lilithu]

What other small government solutions do you propose to make abortion obsolete?

Why don't we start with that one before you go looking for other things to criticize?

So, it is okay to suggest that their certain actions of the Supreme Court are unconstitutional. Or else how would cases get to the Supreme Court that end up in the court reversing themselves?

I don't believe that the Supreme Court has ever said that a previous ruling was unconstitutional. (Tho I could be wrong.) When they don't agree with the ruling of a previous court, they usually find a way to particularize it so that it only applies to the one situation in which it was made and then they generalize in another direction. The more rulings that have gone in one direction, the harder it is to reverse course.

How many times have I said that I don't care about the constitutionality argument and yet we continue? The only reason why I am answering is because of some compulsive need on my part to respond to questions when they are posed to me, as if it would be rude to ignore you.

Well I'll be ignoring any further questions from you here. Enjoy the rest of this tedious thread.

 

[Booko]

So, we can safely say that the idea of sovereignty is meaningless and also the idea of self-government. Apparently, an international organization can supercede the laws of a nation.

You mean, like the sovereignty of the great State of Georgia is meaningless because we happen to have another layer of gov't at the federal level?

What exactly does an attack on honor and reputation entail?

Slander and libel would be two forms, I should think.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi lilithu,

Why don't we start with that one before you go looking for other things to criticize?

You mean getting rid of abstinence-only sex education programs? Getting rid of federal programs would be fine with me. My position would be; let the local schools decide what they want to teach about sex education.

How many times have I said that I don't care about the constitutionality argument and yet we continue? The only reason why I am answering is because of some compulsive need on my part to respond to questions when they are posed to me, as if it would be rude to ignore you.

Well I'm ignoring you. Enjoy the rest of this tedious thread.

I apologize, but I think the two issues are directly related.

Good talking with you lilithu.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Booko,

You mean, like the sovereignty of the great State of Georgia is meaningless because we happen to have another layer of gov't at the federal level?

I don't buy the analogy. Federalism is part of our Constitution. The UN does not comprise our governemnt or a layer of our government.

Slander and libel would be two forms, I should think.

I will repeat my question to you then; would Americans wanting UBL dead violate UBL's basic human right protecting his honor and reputation?

 

[spiritually inclined]

I will repeat my question to you then; would Americans wanting UBL dead violate UBL's basic human right protecting his honor and reputation?

UBL has committed serious human rights offenses. Attempting to stop his activities in order to preserve human life doesn't sound to me like anyone is violating his honor or reputation. UBL has already dishonored himself.

James