Arkolon wrote:Eleanor Ritas wrote:
Therefore there will people who are alive, but not are not able to exercise the rights you list.
By your position, they are alive, people, individuals, humans, etc, but not all can exercise the rights that are afforded thereto. Thus the condition of "self ownership" as you describe does not always provide those rights or the capacity to exercise them in such way that it would be meaningful to have them.
Which rights do you have in mind? A natural right is a negative right or negative liberty that you have naturally by virtue of being born with a mind and a body. Negative rights imply inaction, and not action, so you could be in a vegetative state and still have natural rights.
I am referring to the range of rights you defined as being afforded to one with Self Ownership. I'm sorry if I didn't explain that in a way that would be clear to a reader.
You mentioned things like freedom of expression, movement, bodily sovereignty, etc. But to a person whose capacity to express, move, care for and maintain their body, etc, is diminished materially for some reason, they cannot exercise those rights and so are effectively denied them. If their condition is of sufficient severity, they may be unable to benefit from their own labor (being unable to labor), and are thus denied a central right.
Thus, they do not have or are denied the exercise of a number of rights, yet they are still alive and people.