The problem with the prom queen view of existance as written in my last blog post: The Supreme court says we have the "right to liberty", but where do we get these rights?
This is not an abstract question: Years ago, I read a book review saying that infants, the senile, and the brain damaged might not meet the "criteria" for "Personhood". So I wrote the reviewer an asked: Does this mean they could have their rights taken from them, since they were no longer considered "persons"? And he answered (I paraphrase) yes, that is possible.. Indeed, under the present day trends in philosophy, there is a question why anyone has rights.
the answer for Americans is that our rights are because they were given to us by the Creator.
But the elites want to eliminate all talk of the creator, so that leaves us dependent on the elites to make the definition of who is a person and actually has rights, such as the right to life.
And the next time you read about animal rights groups trying to get a court to declare animals have human "rights", remember this is not about Fido, but about being able to declare grandmom "dead" because she is senile, so that the government doesn't have to pay for her care.
unrelated item from rural Canada: Gay Caswell's fight to have her school be allowed to exist as a charity. So what if it's not "tax exempt", you say?
She suggests they could be confiscated for promoting the wrong attitudes.
She's already been sued for libel for naming a politician who didn't stop the drug pushers, so maybe she doesn't exaggerate too much.