Originally Posted by Bonsai Experiment

The Human right to life, liberty and security of person is not supposed to give you a carte blanche to be free to do what you like, Obviously Not !

But I thought you said human rights don't come with conditions. If you can't do what you like, then there are conditions attached.

Originally Posted by Al Gebra

To other people!
The right to life (as has been said a million times before) is largely seen as a negative right not to be killed unjustly by a third party.

The Human right to life, liberty and security of person could not correctly ever be described as a "negative right". Could you possibly get a more positive right than it ? That has persistently been the problem with the argument , you guys are starting out from the other answer end of the equation (your desired answer) and working your way backwards to try to get the formula that fits it.

Originally Posted by Mercurial

But I thought you said human rights don't come with conditions. If you can't do what you like, then there are conditions attached.

You have a Human right to procreate, but not with anyone you like. We are talking within the realm of common sense, human rights are self evident, the extent to which you can legitimately wield that right is self evident. It is not self evident that you have the right to commit suicide., and nothing you have said has made it self evident or even likely to be true.

Originally Posted by Bonsai Experiment

The Human right to life, liberty and security of person could not correctly ever be described as a "negative right". Could you possibly get a more positive right than it ?

What do you understand the words "negative" and "positive" to mean in the context of rights?

Originally Posted by Bonsai Experiment

You have a Human right to procreate, but not with anyone you like. We are talking within the realm of common sense, human rights are self evident, the extent to which you can legitimately wield that right is self evident. It is not self evident that you have the right to commit suicide., and nothing you have said has made it self evident or even likely to be true.

It's not self-evident that you have the right to interfere with someone's liberty in order to prevent them from killing themselves.

Originally Posted by Sailor

But why is your right to prevent the act superior to another's right to commit the act? Obviously it isn't!

I didn't say it was superior I said it definitely existed, If everyone has the right to self defense and life, and I am equal to you in every way and I have a Human Right to try to save my own life, then I automatically have the right to try to save your life also.

Originally Posted by Bonsai Experiment

I didn't say it was superior I said it definitely existed, If everyone has the right to self defense and life, and I am equal to you in every way and I have a Human Right to try to save my own life, then I automatically have the right to try to save your life also.

I have the right to convert to Islam.

Do I have the right to make you convert to Islam, even if you don't want to?

Originally Posted by Mercurial

What do you understand the words "negative" and "positive" to mean in the context of rights?

I have positive right to try to stop you from committing suicide but I have the negative right also to choose not to.

Originally Posted by Mercurial

I have the right to convert to Islam.

Do I have the right to make you convert to Islam, even if you don't want to?

Of course not, that would violate my Human right to freedom of religion, a UHR already recognised and enshrined in the UDHR.

Originally Posted by Bonsai Experiment

Of course not, that would violate my Human right to freedom of religion, a UHR already recognised and enshrined in the UDHR.

What if I think my God wants me to kill myself. Do you have a right to stop me?