And now, an unintentionally funny headline.

Edit: Boo, they changed it :( It was originally "Smallville’s Allison Mack Fingered as Number 2 in NXIVM Sex Cult"

Diminished. Lessened. Cheapened. Diluted. Made less than before.

OH man that's funny.

In this case I think it's just a fundamental disconnect in how people see laws and government's role. As an admitted communist I can see why you think "someone" needs to step in and decide for these women, but that's not how most Western countries work. Freedom means the right to do pretty much whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt your neighbor, and these women joining a sex cult voluntarily isn't hurting anyone but themselves. It's a shame, and I hope some health organizations get some rational deprogramming to them, but unless a crime was committed it is what it is.

Now if the guy ever kidnapped a girl or drugged a girl or whatever else, that's a whole other story.

An interesting perspective, yet I disagree: most law systems have what have been called "unavailable rights" (I don't know the precise term in English, if there is one, I'm translating from Italian). Rights that the law order deems so intergral and important that nobody can violate or diminish, not even in case of self infliction.
Public order dictates that to avoid any possible abuse the chance to use them in any way is eradicated on principle to prevent even the slightest non-willing violation, a de facto reduction of freedom in exchange of the strongest possible tutelage, as it is seen that nothing good may come from tampering with them - basically, there is no right to be masochistic or self destructive, that is why here euthanasia, assisted suicide, anything that can cause permanent damage or willing slavery are illegal.
In practice some good intentioned "deviants" (for lack of a better word, I don't mean that in a negative connotation) have to be restricted in their means to safeguard the majority.
In my opinion, as awkward and questionable as it may seem -especially to a US citizen, limiting freedom to such extent is necessary to avoid the law of the strongest, a sort of return of a Hobbesian natural state, and I totally adhere to that philosophy.

I hope I am being clear, some elaborate concepts like this one are not easy to express in a non-native language.

I think you ment "should be no right", because not all societies operate that way. Am I correct?

Yes and not.

On an objective point of view should or shouldn't is in the ethics field, and it is not up to me to judge, but to the local society; what I meant is that in some law systems (hence why I said "most law systems"), mine included, that right does neither exist nor it is inferable by an extensive interpretation of the law.

If you ask my personal opinion then yes, I believe there should be no such right.

You're being clear, and I respect your point of view. I'm just saying the opposite philosophy is core to America's spirit. I would never say our system is flawless either, I'm just trying to explain it as best I can so you understand. It's a kind of frontier, individualist idea of freedom we never got rid of after the Revolutionary War.

The English term you are looking for is inalienable rights.

I understood, you explained quite well! :)

Thank you!
I noticed theat often in "legalse" terms that sound similar between Italian and English have actually very different meanings, and I ususally find that out at my expenses with epic misunderstandings. :P

Well, you see - in Smallville Jonathan Kent, for example, is just a simple farmer. He wants for Klark a simple life and thus several time clashes with Jor El on the subject of Klark's destiny. But in the end Jonathan still sacrifices himself (actually, his health, but he still dies later), admitting that it's ultimately Klark's choice and what is important for Klark is to be a good person.

In Man of Steel, on the other hand, Jonathan just forbids Klark to use his powers because he thinks that he will be ostracized for being nonhuman. And dies in an accident that Klark could easily prevent if not following his adoptive fater's wishes. Which makes Jonathan here sooo much deeper and multidimensional character.

Nvm. It's not worth the time.

No, Man of Steel Jonathan Kent is just a jerk who instilled a twisted sense of moral values onto Clark. Telling his son that he was wrong to save someones life, that he should simply standby, watch and let people die (especially if it's a loved one) is not what I'd call Deep. That kind of life lesson can seriously mess up a normal kid, for a kid with superpowers it would be even worse. They'd probably grow up being petty and selfish and do things like get in a fight and knock down a bunch of buildings with no care for the thousands of people in those buildings getting killed. All while wearing the symbol of "Hope" on his chest.

^I agree.

I have never been a fan of Superman (I love when Batman beats the living kriptonite out of the boyscout in the comics) but man of Steel was just WRONG. Superman is an ideal of perfection, he would never harm innocents (even if he is Murican through and trough, so frying enemies is not a big deal), yet he destroys a city without thinking twice in a fight with his enemy. Just... no.
It is like seeing Batman killing someone, maybe with a gun. Absolutely out of character, the negation of what they are.