2 ms·
> Who says the right to bodily autonomy is the most “fundamental freedom?” Let's extend that line of argument: Who says the term "fundamental freedom" doesn't
by dctoedt 2y ago
> Who says the right to bodily autonomy is the most “fundamental freedom?”
Let's extend that line of argument: Who says the term "fundamental freedom" doesn't include the right not to be enslaved based on your skin color? No, it wasn't the Thirteenth Amendment, which merely codified that right: It was four years of one of the most-destructive wars the world had then ever seen, leaving hundreds of thousands of Americans dead or maimed, and the South impoverished for the better part of a century.
Conversely, the South (purportedly) seceded from the Union because a few thousand of its oligarchs and their acolytes felt that they had a "fundamental right," a divine right even, to continue to enslave millions of kidnapped Africans and their descendants. That didn't work out so well for them (nor, sadly, for the liberated blacks).
Ultimately, when claims of "fundamental rights" mean enough to enough people, those claims will be vindicated — or not — by force of arms.
TL;DR: FAFO — one way or another.
- rayiner 2y agoCalifornia could invade Texas for violating the “right to abortion.” Texas could invade California for violating the “right to life.” The US could invade Afghanistan for violating “women’s right to an education.” That doesn’t mean “human rights” exist. It just means that one society can impose its moral preferences on another through military force. “Human rights” just rhymes with “exercise of power.”
- dctoedt 2y ago> Who says the term "fundamental freedom" doesn't include the right not to be enslaved based on your skin color? EDIT (it's too late to revise the post above): Obviously, it should be, "Who says the term 'fundamental freedom' includes [not, 'doesn't include'] the right not to be enslaved based on your skin color?"