Put in a simpler way, these reservists have chosen to give up the right to life AND the right to liberty. This is a world of difference from having rights taken away.
Draft. I’m no longer talking reservists, I’m talking about the draft. Whether or not you agree with it, it shows that it is *possible *for the government to take away the right to life without taking away liberty. A person must sign up for Selective Service, at which point the government holds that person’s right to life in reserve. He does not volunteer to give up that right, he did not choose to put himself in the position of being a young man. The government may not take his life soon, or even at all, but it reserves the right to take (or “donate” might be a better word) his life should it see the need. In the meantime, he has every liberty available to any other American citizen. It is obviously *possible *to have the right of liberty without the right to life under the same governmental system established by your DoI.
Also, do you agree that it’s possible to pursue happiness without having liberty, as discussed above?
And, of course, you still haven’t demonstrated why a previable fetus should have the right to life at all - not to mention any other rights.
All I’m really trying to do here is to poke holes in your order of importance as it pertains to human rights. You seem to see it as self-evident that the right to life is paramount, and I’m trying to understand why. The document you rely on (the DoI) is a piece of rhetoric, not ethics. The logic you rely on (you must have life to have liberty, and you must have liberty to have happiness) doesn’t seem to hold up, either.
I never said it wasn’t possible…I said it was wrong.
My point was that this is in itself a surrendering of liberty. He or she knows they must get up and go whenever called.
Yes, but not to the fullest extent. You can pursue happiness within the limits of your situation. Anne Frank was a wonderfully optimistic person, but I’m sure she could have pursued a whole lot more happiness if she wasn’t locked up in an attic.
I demonstrated my feelings about this to the best of my ability way back in the thread where I explained why I believe the fetus is its own distinct person.
One more time…I understand perfectly well what the DoI is. I understand it is political rhetoric. I used it because I happen to agree with that specific portion of it, and felt it applied in this circumstance. If it helps, forget about the part where I said that I felt the founders put these three rights in this order as a hierarchical statement. Let me rephrase it to say that I SEE AN INHERENT LOGIC
ACK! Somehow I posted that previous post while I was typing away. What I was saying was:
I see an inherent logic in the way each of these rights flows from the next. With life, we can have liberty, and with liberty, we can have the pursuit of happiness. Someone else, many years ago, expressed this in a beautifully eloquent manner, and so I borrowed it. That’s all.
You said the right to life was paramount in two posts:
After some tangents and interesting discussion, the first you chose to explain how you arrived at that conclusion was in post #181:
and again this morning in post #309:
“Cannot”, you wrote, not “should not”. And since this came up in the conversation as a woman’s right to bodily autonomy (which may or may not be identical to “liberty”, though so far we seem to be saying it is) vs. a previable fetus’ right to life, it seems an important issue to get clear on. You seem to be saying “Nope, you **cannot **have liberty without the right to life, so therefore, the right to life is the most important right there is.” If the part before “so therefore” isn’t correct, than the rest doesn’t follow. We need to base our argument on something else.
:dubious: Please, darling. I’d be a lot happier with a needle of happy juice stuck in my arm or smashing my obnoxious neighbor’s windows in with a baseball bat or if I had been born with smaller tits and a perky butt. Damn the limits of my situation! We all have limits to liberty. That doesn’t mean we can’t pursue happiness despite our limitations. The DoI doesn’t say how much happiness we’re entitled to. In fact, it doesn’t say we’re entitled to any at all, only to pursue it, as my mother used to say while handing me the dishrag! 
Okay, I get that. I guess all I can say is that I remain unconvinced by your arguments, although I understand and respect the logic of them. (I believe it was the “unique human being” at conception argument, correct? I get that.)
Okay. I don’t. So where does that leave us? Do we just agree to disagree again? This is another reflection of what I was saying before about people according different ethical principles different weights, and arriving at different conclusions because of that. It’s one of those reasons I think we need to protect a woman’s right to an abortion - because neither you nor I know which right she holds paramount.
I think so, because frankly, I am exhausted. 
I think you’re confusing the right to liberty with the right to property, personally.
Of course, as an anarchist fellow-traveller, I don’t believe the right to property is all that great, either.
Flawed reasoning is not the same as proof beyond reasonable doubt. Even in a tie, the inalienable rights of the pregnant still hold.
r~
Well, I have to work to stay alive. I also have to work to keep others alive…people I don’t even know. If I had liberty, I would only have to work hard enough to keep myself alive, and not have to worry about these other folks.
Your taxes go towards more than just welfare (which could be argued as a way of keeping yourself bodily safe from people who might have no choice but to rob you should welfare not exist) - roads, defence, emergency services. You derive benefit from your tax dollar, it’s not all theft.
But you do not do the bare minimum required just to keep yorself alive, and if you’re not a subsistence farmer, I don’t see your point?
I’m saying that I don;t see how paying taxes impinges on your liberty - it impinges on your choice about what happens to your property (your money), but as I said, it would not be correct to equate right to liberty with right to property.