Summations Only

And mother and baby are said to be doing fine.

Human Rights only exist by consensus of Governments.

Actually, if you read all of that in context, the say "We hold these truths to be...", and then listed several specific rights. Also the "WE" referred to a particular place, government and society. It did not say "And you should too".

I think what you really meant was that they felt that THEY had such rights.They certainly believed that the government could take those rights away from other people. For example women and blacks certainly had no natural rights.There are no "Natural Rights" that cannot be taken away by a government.

The wiki then is factually wrong since there are nations that can and do dismiss just about any so called "natural right" you care to mention.Rights in reality evolve and change over time as a matter of consensus. Certainly we are free to tell any other country that they are wrong, and of course, they are free to say "Nah, nah nah, it's YOU who are wrong!"Also the justification for an illegal act (the US Revolution as one example) is far too often simply sloganism while the real causes are most often just power, wealth, pride.

LOLMaybe by definition they cannot be taken away, but reality does not depend on definitions.We CAN force our idea of "natural rights" on others, but only so long as we wish to remain the despot.

It really depends on what you mean by "fought for".If it means speak out, argue a position, try to build consensus then I doubt anyone would object.If it means impose YOUR idea of what are "natural rights" on others, then I most certainly would object.

Had genocide been the only issue that led to the Yugoslav wars, then yes, I think we might have been in the wrong for intervening.But it wasn't and there wasn't really a functioning government at the time.The US/NATO/UN stepped in because functioning National Government had broken down and there was a real risk of the unrest spreading beyond the national borders of the former Nation of Yugoslavia.It was not a matter of any "Natural Right" or "the right to practice the religion of your choice without facing death at the hands of your government".

Speed limits are a great example to refute inalienable rights.There is no "right of speed limits", rather they are a consensus of a government. The fact that you have the right to drive 70mph on one road does not mean you have that right in a different jurisdiction.Using speed limits as an example of some "Natural Right" is simply silly and irrelevant.

But the rights are granted by a government and apply only within a given context.We might believe certain rights "should be" inalienable, but that is simply our position. Those rights do not exist except within "our" belief context.

Yes, that is what many have argued but all the evidence refutes that argument.The water example is equally silly example.When it comes to water being wet, what does all the evidence show?The evidence shows though that life and liberty are not intrinsic to being human.

You are of course free to make any claims that you want.But yes, the state can have the right to quarter soldiers in my house and in fact, even in the US that has happened. Now I may well believe that they have no right to do so, and I may well express my belief that the government has no right to do so, but they still can do so.

Actually, in both of the examples you mention the Right devolves from the US Constitution.My position is that reality shows that rights are granted by a government, society, culture.Also, please read what I actually write. I said The state, a generic state. The US Constitution is the source of any rights that a US Citizen has, and in the case of the US, it was one of the rights that our government said devolved to the individual.The reason that is listed in the US Constitution is precisely because in other states, that is not the case and the government can quarter troops in an individual's house.Staes have whatever rights they are capable of enforcing.AbE:Also, I don't think you can show that I ever said someone did not have the right to release the judges e-mail to the public but that I found it in poor taste that anyone did so.Nor did I say that you do not have the right to complain about the behavior of the pastor, rather that again, it was none of you business.Edited by jar, : see AbE;

You are, of course, free to argue most anything, at least in the US. Buz does it all the time.The evidence is that even in the US the State has the right to take away someone's life or liberty.

I never doubted you were drawing from others. In fact these very same questions were heated discussion on the porch on warm evening back when I was in about the 9th grade.But reality seldom pays much attention to philosophy except through building a consensus in a particular society.