Ethereal

That's not what I asked. If there is no right to life, as you suppose, then there's no logical reason why I can't murder you, correct?

Also, how does the fact that a right can be violated make it nonexistant? Does that mean you don't have a right to free speech because I can stuff a sock in your mouth?

A person. Now, I know what you're going to say, "the unborn are not persons under the law", hence this debate.

Because it is human law. Animals do not recognize laws, therefore it is not feasible that it should apply to them. However, if you feel the law should extend to animals, the samw way I feel it should extend to the unborn, then feel free to argue that point.

Because the very fact that a right exists means it is subject to a possible violation. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Obviously not. The US government derives it authority from the consent of the governed. Our nation was founded upon the principles enshrined within the Declaration of Independence which consequently reflected the sentiment of the governed, and still does.

The Founding Fathers recognized those rights as being self-evident, as such they found it necessary to afford those inherent rights legal protection in the Constitution.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Ethereal

*Cricket-Cricket*

rivrrat

All you need is the means and opportunity. Nothing stopping you at all.

So we're just talking about US citizens, then?

They're not persons, PERIOD.


Humans ARE animals. But it's interesting that you would apply such a "law" only to humans when there are conceivably other lifeforms that should or could be included. I guess my views are more inclusive.

If you're talking about legal rights afforded by our governing body, they can and have changed at will.


And the founding fathers didn't inlcude women, blacks, or other minorities in their "all men" statement. In fact, the term "all men" inherently excludes women, as intended by the founding fathers.

I really wouldn't use them as examples of people who believed in "equal rights" for all. Because they didn't.

However, we - citizens of the US - have changed our interpretation of their statements and become more inclusive with our civil rights. These are not "human rights", they're rights afforded to US citizens by our government.

The mere fact that something is human doesn't make it deserving of the rights outlined in our governing documents. There are other things that make something deserving of these rights, and it has nothing to do with biological classification.

__________________
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.

prometeus

No, you were disputing the validity of the comparison, now that you have been proven wrong you change your position.

Again, no. There is nowhere in this thread an agreement to that assumption. It is solely yours just as was the implication that anyone agreed to it.

It has as much validity as your dismissal of the commonality between parasites and fetuses. "It is a meaningless commonality that infers nothing beyond itself" you said.

Being influential, or referred to does not make a law. In case you did not know, a law is passed by Congress and it is enforced not referred to.

Well, you obviously missed it, the poiunt is, as it has been pointed out already, that the same men who declared the self-evidence of the equality never respected it. Had they meant it it would have been included into the Constitution, but they were smart enough to know that.

That too, but more importantly you wrong interpretation of it. After all if equality and a right of life was guaranteed by the Constitution at the time of its writing, it was hardly necessary to reassert it almost 100 years later.

prometeus

Yes to a large extent it is arbitrary. That however does not invalidate it. Moralty is too subjective to form the basis of anything that can be imposed on an entire society.

Yes with reason. Abortion is a reason.

Abortion has to do with self-governance and it can be regretted and learned from, but that does not make it necessary to render it illegal.

I did not imply that you denied it, I just wanted to show that man has been and will be killing as lonf as man will exist and the reasons will differ.

Over all I do agree that we should kill as little as possible, but keep in mind that most killings happen because someone wants to impose their view or values on others. Perhaps with time there will be less and less need to kill, but till then if we are to achieve a reduction we should concentrate on the areas that affect the most and the areas that are readily and with lasting effect eliminated. Poverty, disease, war, are far better targets for that.

prometeus

And for the Nth time, but not for blacks women and children.

For the Nth+1 time, that is not part of the Constitution.
It is really not that difficult to grasp. Why are you being so obtuse about it?

Ethereal

Once again, you are dodging my question. I'm not asking you if there is anything to stop me from murdering you, I'm asking you, if there is no right to life, inherent or legal, then there is no logical reason why I shouldn't murder you, or is there? Is there any good reason for me to respect your life if you don't possess a right to preserve it?

Not specifically. The US Constitution affords non-citizens rights as well. You can't simply murder someone because they are an illegal immigrant. We're refering to people who fall under the legislative authority of the United States Government.

That is your opinion.

You know what I meant. Let me be more specific then, human law does not apply to non-humans.

Your views are based on exclusion. Exclusion of those who don't meet your agenda-driven definition of a person. Excluding non-humans from human law is not being arbitrarily exclusive.

So what? That doesn't change the fact that those rights are recognized by law and generally considered to be at the core of American ideology. You make no sense.

How did I know you would quibble over the term "all men"? It's meaning is analogous to humanity, anyone who has a highschool education knows this. And once again, the fact that those demographics had their rights violated doesn't change the fact they still possessed them. You're being obtuse.

So, anytime someone espouses a good and reasonable ideology it is immediately null and void once those who espouse it have violated said principles? The ideology of equality and rights shouldn't suffer from the sins of its progenetors.

The Declaration of Independence has not changed one iota, nor have our interpretation of its words. The only thing that has changed is our interpretation of the Founding Father's practice of those ideals, which, in retrospect, was immoral by modern standards.

The rights afforded by the Constitution apply to anyone who falls under the legislative authority of the US government.

Ethereal

How have you proven the comparison to be valid?

Fine, just forget it. It doesn't matter anyway.

How is it equally valid? I provided a multitude of reasons why the commonality is irrelevant, whereas your dismissal has no reason or logic to support it.

Do you believe in the concept of rights or not?

It is in the Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment. It is also enshrined in Federal and state criminal law which forbids the murder of another person. Also, why must the concept of rights and equality suffer from the sins of those who concieved it?

Regardless, the Constitution asserts a right to life, as does the United Nations.

Show me where the Founding Fathers enacted legislation which excluded any specific demographic from these rights.

Pay attention. You said...

You said that people with whole brains do not recognize the self-evidence of rights, so I quoted the Founding Father's in order to demonstrate that people with full brains are capable of recognizing it. It's quite simple. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Gladiator

Dear Ethereal,

Perhaps it is each woman and each family that ultimately decides when Human life begins. Various governments decide when human life begins. 40% of the abortions in the world are performed under governments that have passed laws restricting Abortion.

I think is pointless to debate because you are just arguing, and you already have your mind made up. You are arguing aginst tne pro choice arguments, and not really putting forth a summary of the logic supporting your position.

Thomas Paine discussed self evident truths in Common Sense, I believe. What may be self evident to you, may be differently self-evident to others, on complex issues such as abortion.

6000 children are dieing each day from unsafe drinking water. This is clearly a destruction of human life. Is it murder? Is is murder to bring a child into the world, for which you cannot reasonably provide safe drinking water?

Is child abuse to eat fish, when a woman is late for a period, and has no access to a pregnancy test? If the child is brain damaged from his mother eating too much Mercury tainted fish, early in a pregnancy, while the child's brain is developing, how is that abuse of the child different from dropping a child on its head?






..

__________________
_______________________________
How did Our Oil get under Their Sand?

talloulou

Nope. Tons of couples lament over the fact that they have no control. Life doesn't always begin because you want it to. Likewise it doesn't always hold off till you're ready for that. Biologically life isn't a philosophy. Humans don't reproduce by deciding life should begin.

Not exactly right. Governments have allowed humans to kill other humans for a variety of different reasons since well forever.

The logic is simple. One human should not be allowed to kill another human without justification. Mothers should not be allowed to end their offspring's life. That is logic.

Your crapola is devoid of logic and sounds like drippy stoner nonsense.

Life doesn't "begin" when mothers decide it begins. If it did women wouldn't need such drastic measures like abortion to terminate a living growing life inside them. They know damn well life has already begun which is why they're paying the dr! If they were uncertain they'd wait it out and see. But there's no uncertainty. The mother NEVER got to decide when life would begin. When life would begin is not what we're even talking about. What we are talking about is whether or not mothers should be allowed to decide when life ENDS. Not begins, ENDS.


It's ridiculous that children die from unsafe drinking water. We should be ashamed of ourselves. But the fact that children do die this way is not justification for allowing mothers to decide when life should END.

Accidents are accidents and we have ways of investigating actual malice and neglect. Dropping a baby on his or her head could very well be and often is accidental. Women rarely go to jail for it and the babies are usually fine.