[Vision2020] Rights, Guns, Abortion, Speech, and Death

[Glenn Schwaller]

Dr. Campbell - so taking this one more step, should and would these "rights"
be extended to those who choose death with dignity?  Does not the right to
privacy similarly ground the "right" to choose the timing of one's death as
well?

Thank you for your reply

GS

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Campbell, Joseph <josephc at wsu.edu> wrote:

>  Scott,
>
>
>
> I've been reading your posts lately about the possible threat to the 2nd
> amendment given the recent Obama election and, although I find your thoughts
> and arguments interesting, I am in firm disagreement with your view. So I'd
> like to say what I think about the issues. I've made these points before but
> I don't think I've made them all to you.
>
>
>
> First, you mention a lack of consistency between liberal views on abortion
> rights and liberal views on gun rights. Some of the confusion may be settled
> if, instead of talking about abortion "rights," we talked about the right to
> privacy, the right upon which the "right" to abortion is founded. Granted
> the right to privacy is not an explicit right, not explicitly noted in the
> bill of rights, for instance. But the argument is that several of those
> rights would make no sense were there not a prior right to privacy. We could
> talk about whether this argument is good or bad at a later point but for now
> let's just assume that there is a right to privacy that grounds the "right"
> to abortion.
>
>
>
> No one thinks that we have an absolute right to privacy, one that should
> not be infringed under any circumstance. In a court of law, for instance, a
> lawyer might ask a defendant questions about his private life that might be
> deemed inappropriate under normal circumstances. Yet the defendant cannot,
> or cannot always, refuse to answer on the basis of his right to privacy. A
> search warrant allows police to investigate the drawers containing your
> undergarments. Similar examples abound.
>
>
>
> Consider next the right to free speech. That right is not absolute either.
> I do not have the right to slander you, to libel you, to tell lies about
> you, or even (I would say) to insult you. I have a right to speak freely and
> in so doing I might insult you but that does not mean that I have a right to
> insult you. I looked up 'human rights' in an on-line dictionary and got:
> "The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held
> to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression,
> and equality before the law." I am entitled to speak freely but I'm not
> entitled to insult you. Still, in an effort to ensure the former we might
> have to put up with the instances of the latter.
>
>
>
> I would say the same about the "right" to abortion, which I would not call
> a right at all. I have a right to privacy and what that ensures is that the
> government cannot tell me when I should and when I should not have a child.
> That is my decision. Provisions should be made that allow me to make that
> decision on my own, without government intrusion. That gives me limited
> access to abortion. The "right" to abortion is founded on the right to
> privacy, and since no one thinks that the right to privacy is unrestricted,
> no one should be in favor of unrestricted abortion "rights," though as in
> the case of free speech the initial right may be important enough to allow
> for behaviors that others would deem offensive. Such is the price of
> freedom.
>
>
>
> It is no mystery when rights should be restricted, for no one has the right
> to deprive another of his right. My right to free speech cannot restrict
> your right to privacy, so restrictions against, say, my broadcasting your
> home address and phone number are appropriate. In general, when my acts are
> likely to lead to harm to other persons, the law may intervene. My rights go
> only so far. What counts as a harm? What counts as a person? These questions
> complicate the matter but clear answers in each case abound, and in those
> clear cases laws may be made restricting certain behaviors, behaviors that
> would otherwise be protected.
>
>
>
> Thus, your view on gun rights seems to be far more extreme than what I take
> to be the liberal view on abortion and speech and rights in general. In the
> latter cases, we recognize restrictions all the time. In fact, there are
> many restrictions to speech and abortion that are already imbedded in the
> law. Few liberals want to do away with laws against slander or laws against
> third trimester abortion since in those cases the harms are clear. (In the
> latter case, I am not talking about the harm to the fetus, I'm talking about
> the harm to society in general, which might override the woman's right to
> what goes on in her own body once the fetus has passed the point of
> viability. That is how I understand Roe v. Wade.)
>
>
>
> Someone above – I can't remember if it was you or Dan or someone else –
> talked about the right to bear arms extending to hunters and gun collectors,
> as if we had rights to hunt or rights to collect as many and as diverse a
> collection of toys as we individually deemed fit; that the second amendment
> protected the collection of any gun by any person for whatever reason. That
> is like saying that because I have a right to privacy I'd have a right to
> your house were that the place that I felt most private. The second
> amendment says nothing about hunting or collecting. Nothing at all, for
> there are no such rights: not in the bill of rights, not in heaven, not on
> earth. These are privileges at most, not rights.
>
>
>
> Nor is our right to bear arms unrestricted, as you seem to suggest. If it
> were, why not allow citizens to obtain nuclear arms? The reason is that the
> chance for abuse and harm is great. The implication is that in such cases,
> the restriction of arms is justified. To think that nuclear arms offer the
> only such case is absurd. Ergo, there is no unrestricted right to bear arms.
> That is a myth.
>
>
>
> I understand that Americans have a fascination with guns, just as they have
> a fascination with privacy and with speech, and given those fascinations a
> tolerance for pushing the bounds of those rights should be respected by all
> parties: conservatives should appreciate the attempt from liberals to push
> the boundaries of our rights to privacy and free speech, and liberals should
> appreciate the attempt from conservatives to push the boundaries of our
> rights to guns and free speech. (It seems that free speech is a right of
> which we all agree, though how that right should be manifested is something
> about which we don't always agree.) Toward that end, I'll try to be more
> respectful of your attempts to keep your toys. But not to the extent of
> affording easy access to nutcases like the Moscow and Virginia Tech
> murderers. Clearly there is a problem with current gun laws but one that we
> should be able to solve without infringing on your right to protect
> yourself, or even your "right" to have a little fun!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Joe Campbell
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081110/f5eea5b0/attachment.html