If the donating blood illustration was not intended to be a comparison to abortion it's pretty ridiculous that you used it as an argument for abortion. I do not believe that abortion has anything to do with a woman's rights to use her own body (how many ties have I said this now) because it is scientifically proven that from the moment of conception the baby and the mother are two separate bodies. I agree that no one should use your body without your consent, but I also agree that no one has a right to kill another human being. Therefore I must evaluate which right is more important, and the right to life is always more important because if you're dead you cannot enjoy any other right. Natural rights can come into conflict, but because some natural rights are more important than others, with life being the most important of all, these conflicts can be rationally resolved. I don't know how I can put it any simpler than that for you, if you still don't understand my position I guess it's a lost cause trying to explain it to you.
As for your argument against natural "negative" rights and for positive rights necessarily coexisting, that's the exact opposite of the truth. In order to secure human rights you must necessarily violate other rights. For example, if humans have a right to housing/shelter, food/water, government must necessarily tax other human beings in order to guarantee these delusional "rights," and taxing involves taking one's money without consent, thus violating the right to private property. It also defies one's right to liberty, that is, not to be ruled without your own consent, because it forces you to give your possession to another entity in order for them to be redistributed to others. Natural and human rights are diametrically opposed to one other. Natural rights, when they are protected, create a free society where of liberty where you may do whatever you want so long as you do not encroach upon the rights of others. Human righ… Čitaj više
Budite prvi koji će odgovoriti na ovu komentar .