What do you think are some inalienable human rights?

The right to your own life.

@lucillelucillelucille: Could you please elaborate?

I have always thought preposterous is that the Constitution “gives” Americans certain rights.

Check out the history that led up to the writing of America’s founding documents and perhaps you will better understand why Rights needed to be spelled out in writing.

Not sure that I agree with everything you state as a Right, but there’s a biggie not on your list—The Right of individual religious belief.

I think the one concerning refusing health aid can be very contoversial. Lets say your an elderly person who is afraid to incur medical bills so you refuse medications or other things that may make your life more comfortable or enables you to live longer. So then if you die because you feel you couldn’t afford it there will be someone ready to sue the government for not helping her out in some way.
Other reasons for refusual that may be questioned, is that you were being forced by some religion to not seek medical help, or you was not in a proper state of mind when you made your choice. Depression is offen something people will not seek treatment for. Usually a family member has to point it out to them and make them seek help.
So as much as I agree that one should be able to decide what to do with their own bodies, I can see and appreciate that it is not a clear cut black and white issue.

The right to pummel till they aren’t moving anyone who harms or threatens to harm your child!

@Austinlad: I think it’s just fine that the Constitution wrote down what rights the founding fathers believed all Americans should have but I also believe those rights don’t go away or change when someone goes to another country without the American Constitution.

@Pandora: I think if everyone was able to receive medical care, regardless of cost, that elderly person would not worry about cost. I also think that if that same elderly person honestly does not want to take pills or get surgery to prolong his/her life and is fully cognizant and able to determine that, then I do not think he/she should have to take those pills or get that surgery.

@Cruiser: Please see number 7.

@KatawaGrey I like the sound of my right better!! I vote to amend your constitutional rights! All in favor say Aye!!

I am big on the right to choose or refuse medcal treatment.

I am only 50 and in good health, BUT..I have already decided that IF I was diagnosed with a serious illness that had odds of 50/50 or less in being completely cured I would choose zero intervention.

I am self employed and pay a high premium for my health coverage which is still only a 70/30 coverage after meeting my deductable.

I would not incur medical debt, I WOULD take my daughter on an around the world cruise and peacefully pass on leaving HER my assets.

I’m very satisfied with my life experience, and see no reason to undergo a lot of iffy medical treatments that usually just painfully prolong the dying process.

@Coloma: My own great-grandmother slipped into a coma when she was 99. At one point, she woke up, pulled the feeding tube out, and slipped back into her coma. My grandmother had a helluva time trying to keep the doctors from putting the feeding tube back in. thankfully, they did not and my great-grandmother died naturally.

@KatawaGrey The problem is that some people may have an illness that is effecting their minds. So how would you know if they are refusing to see a doctor in the first place. And some can seem perfectly normal on the outside but without constant care from a doctor, it may never be bought to light that they are making the decision at an irrational state.
However, like Coloma said. I do believe that in the matter of a severe illness or injury where one is presented with the right to chose to live and prolong the agony than they should have the right to die the way they want to die. But such a decision should be made with a DNR filled out and signed by you when you are sound of mind, way before the illness or injury presents itself. And if the family is also made aware then the government should not step in to interfere.

I’m not sure what the basis is for these rights. You’re making it sound like we have these rights just because we are alive. Correct me if I am wrong.

I don’t think we have any rights other than those which we, as a society, are willing to protect. It’s up to us to extend any “rights” to ourselves. If we go to another society that does not think these rights are worth protecting, then we no longer have those rights.

Not every society protects the same rights. Not every society that wants a right extends it to all people in that society. It seems to me that what is being discussed here would more accurately be called “wishes.” They don’t become rights until we all agree and are willing to do what it takes to protect that “right.”

@Pandora: You are, of course correct. Would you say it is reasonable to amend that right so that it includes a provision for someone who may not be mentally capable to determine one’s own medical attention?

@wundayatta: You hit the nail on the head. I think humans have certain rights because they are alive. I think that certain rights are not supported by certain governments but I don’t think that people living in those countries are lacking those rights, just that the government doesn’t recognize those rights. I respectfully disagree with your last paragraph.

Edit to add: Perhaps you can tell me why your definition of what a right is correct and why mine is wrong. Simply saying I am incorrect does not make it so.

The right to fart anytime I want.

Aaaaaa, there ya go.

@KatawaGrey I liked your question. The area I’m having a tough time with is who decides what rights others get or how someone makes the rules regarding someone else’s rights. That’s not worded well, but maybe it gets my point across.

@Adirondackwannabe: My point is that I don’t think anyone decides who has what rights and when they have them except in the case when someone is mentally incapable of determining certain things such whether or not they should receive medical attention or with whom they participate in sexual acts.

@KatawaGrey I agree with your concept. What I’m struggling with is how it fits across society, governments, countries etc. Who makes the rules, because we are humans and far from perfect.

@Adirondackwannabe: I have no idea how to make it fit across the globe. I only want to establish what these rights are for the time being.

As my grandfather used to say, “If I was king of the world…”

@KatawaGrey Okay, If your king I can live with your rights pretty much across the board, although I support Cruiser’s amendment.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Look up the term “self-evident.” What is self-evident in one age, may not be self-evident in another. In particular I note the number of times you say something medical is self-evident. That men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” What constitutes “the pursuit of happiness” changes from age to age, yet the word “pursut” implies that men are free to seek it, not be given it on a silver platter.

@KatawaGrey -Sure…the most basic,fundamental right is the right to your own life.All other rights are corollaries to the basic right of life.
First,a right must be defined.The definition of a right is action which requires no sanction.In other woeds,I do not need your permission to exist.I do not need your permission to defend myself.I do not need your permission to persue my own happiness.
I do however,need permission to demand anyone pay for my health care.Therefore,it is not a right.I have a right to healthcare,if I can afford healthcare.No one has a right to a commodity.You have a right to achieve the commodity,but not the right to coerce the commodity from others.Again,action which requires no sanction. ;)

@KatawaGrey I do not wish to condone anything that which prevents others from living they way they want to. But among other countries, the USA has laws which are in writing to prevent others from attempting to take away things which individuals hold as important and dear. This is not true in all areas or countries all over the world.

If I was ’ queen of the world’ I would make a 4 day work week the standard.
I would insist on afternoon naps, mental heath days once a month, mandatory 3 week vacations yearly and raise the min. wage to living standards, say $16 an hour! lolol

I’d also implement mandatory stand up comedy clubs to be required, by law, to be patronized once monthly or risk fines and possible imprisonment for violating humor regulations.

Shall I go on….

@KatawaGrey I’m not sure we have to say one or the other of us is right or wrong. I think we are looking at rights through different lenses. I am saying a right can only be something which is, in reality, protected. You are saying that rights are whatever you want them to be, whether they actually exist or not.

In other words, you are asking what people would put on their wish list of rights, and I’m looking at what can actually be a functional right. I also point out that rights don’t exist in any practical way unless you are willing to fight for them. I’m not sure, but it seems to me that you are saying that if you wish it to be a right, it is a right, whether or not it actually is functional in our lives.

@lucillelucillelucille: I don’t want to get into a healthcare debate but I do think that everyone should be able to have access to medical attention. I do not think someone should be unable to get life-saving surgery simply because he/she cannot pay. Also, I agree with you to a point. I think that people have the right to live as they desire as long as the way they live doesn’t hurt another.

@sleepdoc: You are absolutely correct! I was wondering how to put that in writing without sounding too awkward but I like the way you put it. I agree that someone does not have the right to take away that which others hold dear and/or important.

@wundayatta: Once again, you have completely misunderstood me. Everything I have listed and everything the others have added to my list are the kinds of things that people would die without or that they would fight very hard to be able to do/keep. Do you think someone shouldn’t have access to clean water and enough food to keep from going hungry? Do you think a person shouldn’t be able to say no to sexual activity? Do you think a person shouldn’t be able to determine how they are governed, if they are to be governed at all? You make it sound as if I think everyone should have a pony and chocolate cake.

I agree.

Access to healthcare, decent food, clean water, and the right to choose, whatever one chooses as long as it causes no harm to others.

I might add, everyones inalieable ‘right’ to be treated with fairness and dignity whether this is in the judicial realm, personel realm or corporate realm.

@KatawaGrey I can’t help what you think, but I think there is a big difference between “should” and “right.” Would I love for people to have all most of those things as a matter of right? Sure. But people don’t have those things, and saying they have a right to them won’t change that. In order for people to have a right, we all have to cooperate to make that right a reality.

I spent 12 years of my life working to make health care universally accessible in the U.S. I wore my “Health Care Is a Right” button whenever it was called for. I totally believe that in a country as wealthy as the US, we should guarantee access to health care—good health care—to everyone.

But obviously, health care is not a right. Access has been expanded… or will be expanded if they can get the provisions of the law into place before a government comes along that will kill the legislation. But even this law leaves millions upon millions of people uninsured or underinsured.

I think we should have a right to health care, but we don’t have a right to health care. Therefore, until health care is a right, we don’t have a right to it. Do you see what I mean? Aspirational vs functional. My understanding of what you say is that you want to know what rights people aspire to. I want to know what rights can actually be guaranteed in reality.

The right to subtly mock serious discussions that won’t actually get anywhere.

I think it’s just fine that the Constitution wrote down what rights the founding fathers believed all Americans should have but I also believe those rights don’t go away or change when someone goes to another country without the American Constitution.

Yes, @KatawaGrey, but rightly or wrongly, many other countries don’t believe what we do.That’s one of the reasons we’re so hated in so many places —we keep trying to change them to our way of thinking.

@wundayatta: Please read my question again. I have said nothing about going about changing where these rights are enforced, I am merely trying to cobble together a list of things that I believe all humans should have no matter what. This isn’t a health care debate. When I say people have the right to get medical attention, do you know what that means? It means that people have the right to be helped when they are hurt or dying. But, from what I understand you’re saying, nobody actually deserves anything until everybody has it which is preposterous. I don’t think a victim of female genital mutilation lacked the right to avoid the procedure simply because it’s legal in the country. I don’t think I lack the right to determine who governs me simply because somewhere else, other people don’t get a say. Once again, you are arguing semantics with me when I think you know exactly what I mean.

The right to say no without feeling guilty or selfish. Only you, yourself can reguate that one!

@bob_ -Or blantantly mock…I’m all for that too :)

@KatawaGrey I don’t agree with the right to reproduce.

If they will be harmful to their children or others or can not take care of themselves, I think they should seriously reconsider.

I think humans need to have the right to acquire the things you mention plus many others, but I don’t think any government is required to provide them to those who are capable of providing them for themselves.

Someone is always suggesting the government provide more free services to the populace, my question always is, who is going to pay? I am proud to pay taxes, it means I am productive and have an income and am providing for myself. But I don’t want to see my taxes raised so that I am putting food on your table when you should be working to provide your own food and shelter.

@lucillelucillelucille I think doing it subtly is classier.

Now pull my finger XD

I always feel that when it comes to basic human rights, our constitutions are not giving, but recognizing these rights. In general, I believe that lawmakers should consider that phrasing over granting rights.

In any way, in addition to (some on) your list, I would say that people should have:
A right to information on issues that effect their lives
A right to bee free of mind, be autonomous in thinking your own thoughts (for as far as that is possible).
A right to be treated fairly.

Just to name a few that spring to mind.

And no leash laws for cats! *(&)(%^$#@#$ !!! ;-)

@Luffle: Ah, you bring up an excellent point. I don’t think humans necessarily have the right to raise children but I do think we have the right to actually pass our genes on to the next generation. I think a man donating sperm or a woman giving a baby up for adoption still falls neatly into this right. thank you for bringing that up!

@whitenoise: An excellent answer! I agree with everything you said!

@Coloma Please explain how I can keep my neighbor’s dozen cats from coming in my yard and messing up my lawn. I can’t even let the boys play out there without plastic bags over their shoes – and recently those darn cats have become infested with fleas, and I had to have my entire yard sprayed.

I treat my dog with Advantage, and keep him indoors most of the time – but my neighbors are not as responsible.

I want a cat leash law.

@YARNLADY

I can understand that in your circumstance.

I like the idea of cats being free…but not if they are ruining anothers property.

I don’t have that issue up here, plenty of space between houses, like acres.

I think the owners should be cited in your case and warned to confine their pets in a residential area.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or property, depending on which philosopher you favor).

As an extension of this, I believe that you have the right to swing your fist as you please, as long as you don’t connect with someone else’s nose. Take from that what you will.

@CaptainHarley -Exactly :)

@lucillelucillelucille

Thank you!

Seems like we’re agreeing a lot here lately. I find that scraifying! Heh!

Everyone has the right to be treated with respect regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion/non-religion, financial class, personality, etc as long as someone doesn’t disrespect other people.

@Jabe73

I suspect that you’re barking up the wrong tree here. I seriously doubt that “respect” can be legislated. A case could be made for prohibiting certain kinds of DISrespect, but respect, true respect, must almost always be earned by the individual who desires it.

@KatawaGrey If semantics aren’t important, then communication is impossible. Or very imprecise.

”But, from what I understand you’re saying, nobody actually deserves anything until everybody has it which is preposterous.”

I did not say what you paraphrased. What people deserve is very different from what they have a right to. Aspirational rights are very different from actual rights.

I always have trouble with conversations like this for the very reason we are discussing. I don’t understand what people mean when they say rights. If they mean what I think they mean, then I don’t think there are any rights. That’s because rights are a purely human social concept. There is no universal authority that determines what rights are or aren’t.

Rights are a social concept and are related to the culture you live in, it seems to me. That’s because humans are the ones who grant rights to themselves or others. And we don’t grant them, we fight to obtain them. A right, to me, is something that you will stand on the ground, draw a line, and fight to the death for in order to keep it. I don’t for a second believe that the people here would draw that line for most of the things they want. To me, that’s what “inalienable” means. That’s what the revolutionary and civil wars provided for us. That’s what so many other people’s lost lives provided for us.

Are you willing to fight for (maybe not die for—although a lot of people did die so that we can enjoy the rights we have now) the things you want to be rights? How hard?

That means that what you are talking about are wishes and normative ideas, which is fine. Then I do understand what you are talking about. However, I don’t think you would agree with me on this definition. Thus we are arguing.

@KatawaGrey “You are, of course correct. Would you say it is reasonable to amend that right so that it includes a provision for someone who may not be mentally capable to determine one’s own medical attention?”
Did you mean amend it so a person can be respresented by the courts in determining if the persons life should be extended if they did not have a DNR when they were in proper state of mind?

@Pandora: I’m not actually talking about the courts at all. I’m trying to talk more about inherent rights, as in, those things which each person should be able to have access to or be able to do regardless of courts, governments, etc. I think every person has the right to refuse medical attention, but you pointed out that some people are mentally incompetent so I amended my statement by saying that every mentally competent person has the right to refuse medical attention.

@wundayatta: I’m done. All you’re trying to do is poke me with a sharp stick. Consider me poked.

@wundayatta Are you willing to fight for (maybe not die for—although a lot of people did die so that we can enjoy the rights we have now) the things you want to be rights? How hard?

That means that what you are talking about are wishes and normative ideas, which is fine. Then I do understand what you are talking about. However, I don’t think you would agree with me on this definition. Thus we are arguing.

Great parody of the Princess Bride : – )