Are they Rights or Permissions?

I have heard a few people recently exclaim they do not believe in the theory of "Natural Rights" but more in a theory that we, as humans, can do only what outside persons allow us to do or help us to do. This seems a crazy concept to myself, and probably to quite a few of my readers, so I wanted to take a moment to touch on this idea, and to ask for any feedback on the idea of  "permissible actions rather than explicit natural rights"

The beginning of this theory it is said relates to the young, the newly born, the ones unable to provide for themselves to ensure their safety, security, and prosperity. This part of the theory relies on the fact that as an infant, and what I would supposed to be also the case in a geriatric stage, that these beings need help to perform tasks and actions just for their basic survival. This is said to be the stage at which a person would not have a right to anything but rather a dependency on others to perform actions for it and can choose whether or not to do so.
Question: Under this theory I can conclude these people to say that a child has no "right" to live but only a permission to do so under the care of others, is this to say that even after birth, a child, a human being has no right to life and can be killed by its caretakers on a notion that they did not give permission for its survival and chose not to nurture the child until it was self sufficient?

That is a maddening thought to me; one that takes away the most basic humanity of people and subjects them to a form of barbarity and cruelty I do not want to know or ever allow to exist. I would seriously question the morality of anyone who dares to agree to that.


Under this theory all human action is delegated to permissions from what we can label "society". If this society allows us to own a home, we can, but if they do not than we cannot. This point can be taken with all property, actions, and production. In this theory only that which is allowed, by what I am to assume is a majority, can be be done. What a scary theory indeed. A socialistic, communal, decision can affect the lives of everyone. But let us not think of it only in what can be called negative rights or what is not permitted. Let us take this theory to positive rights or permissions.
If this society were to condone and endorse an act of taking someone's life for a small transgression against another, say you ran over their flower garden (if they are allowed to have one) with your car (if you are allowed to have one) and the result of this would be in the norm for the transgressor to be killed by the victim.
What has been done to justify the taking of life? What has been done to rectify the situation other than to kill the other party? What positive effect can come of this?

If in this self indulgent society where permission is a valid use of force and judgement of others, the idea were to arise that an act in violation of one's morals were to become routine and customary, made to be privy to the permission of the majority vote, would they then regard the notion of permission over rights as invalid?

Rights exist regardless of the permission granted by anyone, it is the practice of those rights that is in question of permissibility. In that, a look into private property rights would be more influential.
If a man were to allow or disallow an act in or on their property, it is the act of permission that can be charged as hindering rights.  In that aspect all property owners have a right to refuse or allow whatever actions they feel comfortable with and assume all risks therein in response to those actions. It is still not to say that natural rights do not exist, but that the practice of those rights have been trumped by others natural rights.

This entire argument bases itself on the thought that Natural Rights do not exist when in fact it is a study into the permission of the practice of those rights that is the argument. One can do well to recognize the argument as a fallacious debate on two entirely different aspects of human behavior and interaction.

Right to Life and the Right to Die: Rethinking what that means.

What does it mean to be Pro-Life? In the popular definition it is the protection of life, usually meant in the ways of protecting an unborn child from the choice of abortion. I wrote previously about that choice as I see it as the individual rights of the mother and father to make that choice up to a defined and measurable heartbeat of the fetus. But what I want to talk about is not about the choice of abortion or even the choice of being Pro-Life. What I aim to highlight is a discrepancy I see in the train of thought of some of those that claim to hold a Pro-Life moral philosophy. It is without a doubt a worthy venture to protect human life, and I do not see anything wrong with that philosophy, what I do see though is certain disconnects in the Pro-Life mindsets of some people I have conversed with recently.

I make the case that if you are Pro-Life for the life of a child you should carry that philosophy all the way through the life of the individual. This would be a consistent and principled stance in the protection of life in all instances, rather than an exclusionary and emotional response.

 Three areas I see in conflict with this proposed philosophy are (1) the approval and endorsement of acts of war and violence in certain circumstances and under the guise of government acts or employ, (2) calling for death penalties and the lifelong incarcerations of individuals, and (3) has to do more with the choices within the timeline of life and the ultimate choice in life that some take is to voluntarily end theirs, the ability to live a life they see fit without hindrance or opinionated laws restricting them.

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death?

The war screams and pro-military intervention crowds really confuse me. These groups seem to be made up more from people who hold a Pro-Life stance, odd as that might be. It’s as if the concept of death escapes by some sort of justification or moral high ground. It is this missed concept that confuses me. If one holds a belief that life should be protected and nourished, then it should stand to apply across the board, that ALL life be protected. Unfortunately it is, in the minds of many, exclusionary, it holds an asterisk* to the end of a sentence, it includes only those that the believer holds as superior or more important in having this life that is protected. If the Pro-Life believers were true to their claimed philosophy they would be against all forms of killing, whether in the employment of a government or not. As governments around the world push harder and harder to either remain sovereign or to remain in their place of self-indulging and self-proclaimed superiority they employ forces of individuals to do their deeds. In these deeds is often the chance to either kill or be killed while serving. As a supporter of a mindset that all life should be protected, these acts should be overwhelmingly opposed by the Pro-Life individuals. But what is reality? Reality is a far cry from a firm stance on that philosophy.

In the same vein of military the increasing amount of cases of death at the hands of police should be noted as a discrepancy as well. For too long now we have seen the ever increasing brutality of the world’s police forces, for too long now these killings by police officers have gone somewhat hidden or unnoticed by the public. Not so much anymore. With the rise in technology in cellphones the capability to take video and to make it public instantly has become a nuisance to police and a help to those who call for accountability and transparency. The act of killing a person in the line of duty has long been associated with the job description of police officers, and there are many reasons why this is so, but this should not give them unrestrained abilities to murder without recourse. This should not give them amnesty in the eyes of justice. It should not grant them the blindness and permit to take life from the Pro-Life believers.  If it is wrong for one to kill it is equally wrong for every other person no matter what clothes you wear, no matter what taken not granted authority you claim to have.

Can you be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty?

The Death Penalty has been a mainstay of execution methods for well over 100 years in the US. It is without a doubt the second most controversial discussion of social order aside from abortion. It comes from a line of thought that states and federal governments should have the legal authority and moral judgment to adjudicate a person to die by various means in government run institutions. Looking at some polls and opinion survey results from different groups and institutions it seems Americans in particular are keen to the death penalty and see it as a moral means to the subjective idea of social justice. In the comment sections of local and national news I see daily comments that support the state’s ability to kill a person for a transgression it was not harmed in; unless we count the case of murder as an act of taking a revenue source from the state as the act that which is being punished. In the minds of these commenters there is the ability to convey an idea that justifiable murder can take place in the case of agents or agencies of the government committing the act. Like the other instances of the discrepancy in the line of thought of Pro-Life thinkers, can you really claim to protect a life in one circumstance and reject this thought in another? Can you say that humans can lose the ability or favor of being important enough to be spared from death? At what point would a person lose this ability? Can one re-gain the lost ability or favor by any means; repentance, restitution, admitting guilt and wrongdoing? Can one ever regain the protection of their life?

The difference in being Pro-Life and being Pro-Living.

Many people I have talked to have a thought that Pro-Life is only the idea to protect the actual life from being destroyed, but what about the act of living that life, what about the actions and choice in that life? Shouldn’t those also be protected from interference and hindrance? What if the action or choice was so out of the norms that it goes against the position of being Pro-Life but is in line with being free to make decisions for one-self? What if a person’s choice was to voluntarily end their own life? I know suicide is a not too talked about topic in the right to life or Pro-Life circles, but does it not conclude that the right to life would also include the right to end that life by choice? In my personal opinion this choice cannot be made for another person, as well as it cannot be stopped by any person. The right to life and the right to live a free life includes a right to cease to live. Voluntary removal from the situation and circumstance too big to handle for some is nothing new, it should neither be banned nor openly endorsed, it is a choice and rightfully should be made only by individuals. This is the case of protecting the act of living over the act of life itself, the act of making choices rather than living by someone else’s standards, the act of remaining free over remaining caged by societal norms and traditions.  

I know this seems in contradiction to what I have written above, but consider a new way of looking at the issue of life. Being alive does not guarantee happiness, it does not guarantee equality, it does not afford us fairness and sometimes that is just too much for someone to take. The act of protecting a life may in the best case be to let it go.  To let the choice be made and to exit in the time, place and situations they may choose. So in the end the position to be Pro-Life must at some times be to be Pro-Choice. It must sometimes be to embrace the act of death for one to live a life worth living.

Right to Life and Pro-Life labels being thrown around leaves a lot to be defined.  Let this be my contribution to the thought of what it can mean to be Pro-Life in all instances, what it means to take a serious, principled stance for the protection of life under all circumstances.