• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Thus proving that no natural right to life exists.

How does that prove that? Just because you will die doesn't mean or imply that you don't have the right to not be killed by another human being. Does it?

A natural desire to live exists, but not a right to live.

Well the two have nothing to do with each other, so..

Why would that be the fundamental purpose of government? If we know anything for certain, every government does the exact opposite on occasion. Our own government does it more often than most. So why would you think that that is the fundamental purpose of government when the evidence suggests that there is no way that could possibly be it's fundamental purpose?

Well ok then, what is the fundamental purpose of government to you? I happen to believe the fundamental purpose of government is protect the natural rights of people. What do you think is its fundamental purpose?
 
Last edited:
:prof Natural rights philosophers do not define reality. We're discussing facts, not opinions. It is a fact that a natural right to life cannot possibly exist.



I'm quite familiar with the concept. Did I say anything about laws, society, customs or beliefs? Of course not. Nothing at all about what I'm saying relates to positive law in any way.

I'm not disagreeing with the concept of natural rights, I'm disagreeing with one particular thing that most of them have mistakenly described as a natural right. I've done this by showing logically how it cannot possibly be a natural right.

It's not my fault that many natural rights philosophers failed to fully vet their premises on their claims about a natural right to life.

Hobbes was on the money whe he discussed the idea that every man has a natural right to use his power, intellect and abilities to preserve his own life. He doesn't say that every man has a natural right to life because, as you point out, that is one thing that no one has ever had. It is natural however that he use whatever he can to protect his life for as long as possible.

He also said though, that in his natural state, every man has a natural right to every thing (including other men) and is only limited by his ability to achieve that. This leads to his observation that in a natural state there would be a constant war of everyone against everyone else, leading to human lives being 'nasty, brutish, and short'.

So, not only are our natural rights advocates wrong about the existence of a natural right to life, they are also wrong in seeing the recognition of such 'natural rights' as fundamentally preeminent or inalienable.
 
How does that prove that? Just because you will die doesn't mean or imply that you don't have the right to not be killed by another human being?

That's not a natural right to life, that's claiming that a natural right to not be killed by another human being exists.

But there's nothing at all which would imply, in any way, that any such natural right exists.

In fact, nobody even believes that such a right exists. Nobody.

The follow up to any claims about the existence of a natural right to not be killed by another human being is a claim that, because of this "right", that there exists a natural right to self-defense, even if that self-defense requires a human being to kill another human being.

In the simplest terms, this is saying that a natural right to kill another human being under certain specific conditions exists. If we have one natural right to not be killed by another human being, we cannot simultaneously possess a natural right to kill another human being under ANY circumstances. It's paradoxical.

So either the natural right to self defense exists or the natural right to not be killed by another human being exists, but both "natural rights" cannot possibly exist simultaneously due to the above paradox.

Since we know that almost everybody supports at least one circumstance where one human being kills another, we can say that no human being agrees that there exists a natural right to not be killed by another human being.

However, that doesn't mean that such a natural right doesn't exist. It merely means that nobody actually believes that such a natural right exists. Everyone could be wrong on that, though.


Well the two have nothing to do with each other, so..

Not really. The reason why people fool themselves into believing that a natural right to life exists is because of that natural desire to live. It's why people say "try to prevent death" rather than "try to postpone death". People don't like to think about their innate mortality. They dislike the fact of their eventual demise so much that they actively avoid thinking about it.

In order to accurately assess the existence or non-existence of a right to life, though, one must directly address the certainty of death. The natural desire to live ends up in conflict with the reality of certain non-existence, making the thought exercise an unpleasant one rather than entertaining one. This is why so many natural philosophers came to such an obviously false conclusion about the existence of a natural right to life.

They may have been correct about other natural rights, however, such as the aforementioned natural right to self-defense. Unfortunately for their logical arguments, they started with the premise that the natural right to life exists in order to claim that the natural right to self-defense exists. Of course, the unsound nature of that specific argument doesn't negate the possibility of the conclusion being true.





Well ok then, what is the purpose of government to you?

All of the evidence available implies that the purpose of government is to unite groups of like-minded individuals under a single set of codified rules to create a specific culture and society with a clear hierarchy and consequences for violating the agreed upon rules. It appears to be an extension of our natural social tendencies as a social animal coupled with our higher order intellect (as compared to other known animals).

I happen to believe the purpose of government is protect the natural rights of people and I'm very interested in hearing what you think.

How can the government's primary purpose be to do something which it cannot possibly do with any certainty? We can only guess at what is or is not a natural right, and that's when we're operating under the prima facie assumption that such things even exist. If we start from a more accurate prima facie assumption that they may or may not exist, we add an even greater level of uncertainty to what we are attempting to do. We are first guessing that they do exist, and then guessing at which one's are accurately labeled as such.
 
Hobbes was on the money whe he discussed the idea that every man has a natural right to use his power, intellect and abilities to preserve his own life. He doesn't say that every man has a natural right to life because, as you point out, that is one thing that no one has ever had. It is natural however that he use whatever he can to protect his life for as long as possible.

He also said though, that in his natural state, every man has a natural right to every thing (including other men) and is only limited by his ability to achieve that. This leads to his observation that in a natural state there would be a constant war of everyone against everyone else, leading to human lives being 'nasty, brutish, and short'.

So, not only are our natural rights advocates wrong about the existence of a natural right to life, they are also wrong in seeing the recognition of such 'natural rights' as fundamentally preeminent or inalienable.

I completely agree with the above.
 
That's not a natural right to life, that's claiming that a natural right to not be killed by another human being exists.

But there's nothing at all which would imply, in any way, that any such natural right exists.

What exactly is a right to you?

In fact, nobody even believes that such a right exists. Nobody.

That is simply not true. Many people believe it on this very forum.

The follow up to any claims about the existence of a natural right to not be killed by another human being is a claim that, because of this "right", that there exists a natural right to self-defense, even if that self-defense requires a human being to kill another human being.

In the simplest terms, this is saying that a natural right to kill another human being under certain specific conditions exists. If we have one natural right to not be killed by another human being, we cannot simultaneously possess a natural right to kill another human being under ANY circumstances. It's paradoxical.

No, they can very well co-exist. Maintaining the condition is the goal of the right and therefore it is understandable if action is taken to persevere it from aggressors at the time of attack.

So either the natural right to self defense exists or the natural right to not be killed by another human being exists, but both "natural rights" cannot possibly exist simultaneously due to the above paradox.

There so paradox. Since the above individual is attempting to cause harm to the life of the one party their life is therefore forfeit for the survival of the other party that is being attacked by them.

Since we know that almost everybody supports at least one circumstance where one human being kills another, we can say that no human being agrees that there exists a natural right to not be killed by another human being.

However, that doesn't mean that such a natural right doesn't exist. It merely means that nobody actually believes that such a natural right exists. Everyone could be wrong on that, though.

How is it exactly unreasonable to take steps to preserve the right from aggressors? I'm a bit lost on how that isn't in line with the protection of the right?


Not really. The reason why people fool themselves into believing that a natural right to life exists is because of that natural desire to live. It's why people say "try to prevent death" rather than "try to postpone death". People don't like to think about their innate mortality. They dislike the fact of their eventual demise so much that they actively avoid thinking about it.

I don't know anyone that using the argument in a way to run away from the fact that they will one day die.

In order to accurately assess the existence or non-existence of a right to life, though, one must directly address the certainty of death. The natural desire to live ends up in conflict with the reality of certain non-existence, making the thought exercise an unpleasant one rather than entertaining one. This is why so many natural philosophers came to such an obviously false conclusion about the existence of a natural right to life.

That is silly. They came to conclusion on the right because of the natural existence of life and the desirable effects of such a result of protecting it.

They may have been correct about other natural rights, however, such as the aforementioned natural right to self-defense. Unfortunately for their logical arguments, they started with the premise that the natural right to life exists in order to claim that the natural right to self-defense exists. Of course, the unsound nature of that specific argument doesn't negate the possibility of the conclusion being true.

It is perfectly sound because self defense is preserving the desired condition.


All of the evidence available implies that the purpose of government is to unite groups of like-minded individuals under a single set of codified rules to create a specific culture and society with a clear hierarchy and consequences for violating the agreed upon rules. It appears to be an extension of our natural social tendencies as a social animal coupled with our higher order intellect (as compared to other known animals).

Well if that is the reason than it would be fair to say it never did that either.

How can the government's primary purpose be to do something which it cannot possibly do with any certainty? We can only guess at what is or is not a natural right, and that's when we're operating under the prima facie assumption that such things even exist. If we start from a more accurate prima facie assumption that they may or may not exist, we add an even greater level of uncertainty to what we are attempting to do. We are first guessing that they do exist, and then guessing at which one's are accurately labeled as such.

There is no guessing on what applies.

Life
Property
Liberty

Do I need to define them for you? I don't understand how this isn't easy to follow.
 
What exactly is a right to you?

"something that one may properly claim as due" or "the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled"

Nobody is "due" a life by nature, nor are they entitled to one by nature. :shrug:

That is simply not true. Many people believe it on this very forum.

I have never seen a single person who supported a natural right to not be killed by another human being. Everyone creates arbitrary exceptions. If exceptions exist, then the right cannot exist.



No, they can very well co-exist.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Mutually exclusive situations cannot exist.

Maintaining the condition is the goal of the right and therefore it is understandable if action is taken to persevere it from aggressors at the time of attack.

That violates the right of the other person, thus paradox.

There so paradox. Since the above individual is attempting to cause harm to the life of the one party their life is therefore forfeit for the survival of the other party that is being attacked by them.

A natural right cannot be forfeit. Only legal rights can be forfeited. Natural rights would be innate and inalienable. If they are inalienable they cannot be forfeited.

How is it exactly unreasonable to take steps to preserve the right from aggressors?

What right? No natural right to life exists, as I have shown repeatedly.

A right to self-defense might exist, but that's a different matter altogether. It's certainly not unreasonable to exercise a right to self-defense.

I'm a bit lost on how that isn't in line with the protection of the right?

You can't protect something which doesn't exist. No such right to life exists. Just because you want there to be a natural right to life doesn't make it so. You won't be lost if you respond to what is actually said instead of imaginary things you have made up to replace that which was said.

I don't know anyone that using the argument in a way to run away from the fact that they will one day die.

They may make passing reference to death's inevitability, but then they dutifully ignore it in their logic.


That is silly. They came to conclusion on the right because of the natural existence of life and the desirable effects of such a result of protecting it.

Nonsense. They came to that conclusion because they ignored all of the evidence which proves it wrong.

It is perfectly sound because self defense is preserving the desired condition.

If that's your argument, it cannot possibly be sound because you are engaging in the fallacy of four terms. Thus, the logic is now invalid as well as unsound.




Well if that is the reason than it would be fair to say it never did that either.

Why? Do we not have laws? do we not have culture/ Do we not have society? What is your basis for the claim above?

There is no guessing on what applies.

Life
Property
Liberty

Those are obviously guesses. And sadly, they aren't even your guesses.

One of them has been proven to be a false guess. One is something which has nothing whatsoever to do with nature, but is instead a social construct, and the last is the very thing that governments exist to place limitations upon.


Do I need to define them for you?

I seriously doubt you are capable of doing so with any accuracy.

I don't understand how this isn't easy to follow.

It's very easy to follow. It's also very easy to see that it is false, provided one chooses not to ignore all of the evidence proving it to be pure guesswork.
 
"something that one may properly claim as due" or "the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled"

Nobody is "due" a life by nature, nor are they entitled to one by nature. :shrug:

Ok then, so we now have that established.

I have never seen a single person who supported a natural right to not be killed by another human being. Everyone creates arbitrary exceptions. If exceptions exist, then the right cannot exist.

Self defense is the act of defending such right. That is not an exception.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Mutually exclusive situations cannot exist.

They are not mutually exclusive though. One logically follows the other.

That violates the right of the other person, thus paradox.

His life is forfeit from his own actions which are in violation.

A natural right cannot be forfeit. Only legal rights can be forfeited. Natural rights would be innate and inalienable. If they are inalienable they cannot be forfeited.

If you are in the act of killing another it is the right of the person being attacked to protect themselves in any way possible. Its simply a matter of where rights begin and others end.


What right? No natural right to life exists, as I have shown repeatedly.

You haven't really shown it doesn't, just like I haven't shown it does. This entire talk so fair has been a bit fruitless.


You can't protect something which doesn't exist. No such right to life exists. Just because you want there to be a natural right to life doesn't make it so. You won't be lost if you respond to what is actually said instead of imaginary things you have made up to replace that which was said.

Oh ok, so we are back there again. Figures.

They may make passing reference to death's inevitability, but then they dutifully ignore it in their logic.

I have a feeling you don't understand their logic. I haven't seen anyone come and say death isn't a factor and won't necessarily occur. Instead they focus on preservation of life from the aggression of others. If that life ends from natural accords has no bearing on anything.

Nonsense. They came to that conclusion because they ignored all of the evidence which proves it wrong.

Says who?

If that's your argument, it cannot possibly be sound because you are engaging in the fallacy of four terms. Thus, the logic is now invalid as well as unsound.

What? How?

Why? Do we not have laws? do we not have culture/ Do we not have society? What is your basis for the claim above?

Government doesn't unite people of like minds. It never has. This debate right here is a evidence of that. It makes people follow the laws regardless if they agree or not. If we wish to talk of what society actually does, that is what it actually does.

Those are obviously guesses. And sadly, they aren't even your guesses.

I will face the former later, but I never said anything I said here is from me.

One of them has been proven to be a false guess. One is something which has nothing whatsoever to do with nature, but is instead a social construct, and the last is the very thing that governments exist to place limitations upon.


Life exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
Property exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
Liberty is the act of doing what you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.

They are desired conditions of the human species and all natural and take no aggression on others to come about.

I seriously doubt you are capable of doing so with any accuracy.

Well ok, tell me how I did then.

It's very easy to follow. It's also very easy to see that it is false, provided one chooses not to ignore all of the evidence proving it to be pure guesswork.

Well you haven't provided such evidence.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to interrupt this very interested exchange, but I'd just point out a few logical flaws in this post:

Self defense is the act of defending such right. That is not an exception.
He didn't say 'self-defence', he said "I have never seen a single person who supported a natural right to not be killed by another human being." The right to self-defence is not the same thing at all.


They are not mutually exclusive though. One logically follows the other.
You cannot have the natural right to life and then have a natural right to kill others, even in self-defence. You can have the legal right to do so, or you can have the natural right to do so if you recognise that the natural right to life does not exist. The paradox is clear.


His life is forfeit from his own actions which are in violation.
Then his right to life was not inalienable - it would be alienated, and not by his own hand nor his own actions.

Life exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
Property exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
Liberty is the act of doing what you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.

They are desired conditions of the human species and all natural and take no aggression on others to come about.
That's three fallacies in one sentence - bolded.
 
I don't want to interrupt this very interested exchange, but I'd just point out a few logical flaws in this post:

He didn't say 'self-defence', he said "I have never seen a single person who supported a natural right to not be killed by another human being." The right to self-defence is not the same thing at all.

He said that it was an exception, and its not.

You cannot have the natural right to life and then have a natural right to kill others, even in self-defence. You can have the legal right to do so, or you can have the natural right to do so if you recognise that the natural right to life does not exist. The paradox is clear.

I believe he already said what you did there.


Then his right to life was not inalienable - it would be alienated, and not by his own hand nor his own actions.

His own actions lead to the party having to defend their right to life. I think that is very much in line with the principle I put out of rights ending where others begin. You must have the right to act to protect it. The one is attached to the other at its hip.

That's three fallacies in one sentence - bolded.

All are desired conditions, all our natural, and all take no aggression to gain. No fallacy.
 
Self defense is the act of defending such right. That is not an exception.

Where did you get that idea from?



They are not mutually exclusive though. One logically follows the other.

One logically contradicts the other, as I have demonstrated quite clearly.



His life is forfeit from his own actions which are in violation.

Thus, the right is not inalienable, ergo it is not a natural right.



If you are in the act of killing another it is the right of the person being attacked to protect themselves in any way possible.

Who said anything about being in the act of killing another? We're talking about self-defense. This act is not limited to times when life is threatened.

Its simply a matter of where rights begin and others end.

That's a discussion for legal rights, not natural rights.




You haven't really shown it doesn't, just like I haven't shown it does. This entire talk so fair has been a bit fruitless.

False. I've shown it repeatedly. You've just ignored it repeatedly by virtue of invalid logical defenses of a false belief.




Oh ok, so we are back there again. Figures.

Back there? We never left there. Just because you haven't acknowledged the facts does not mean the facts do not remain facts.


I have a feeling you don't understand their logic.

I do not believe you are a competent judge of such things.


I haven't seen anyone come and say death isn't a factor and won't necessarily occur.

Speaking of not understanding logic, Where on Earth did you get the very silly idea that that would somehow matter?

Instead they focus on preservation of life from the aggression of others.

:prof That would be the basis for a natural right to self defense argument, not a natural right to life argument. I've clearly stated that a natural right to self-defense can exist. It is a very different thing than a natural right to life.

If that life ends from natural accords has no bearing on anything.

It has no bearing on a natural right to self defense, as I have already noted, but it absolutely has bearing on the existence of non-existence of a natural right to life.

Says who?

Says logic.



What? How?

how can you possibly make the asinine claim that I don't understand anyone's logic if you don't understand what a fallacy of four terms is? Seriously.


Government doesn't unite people of like minds.

Partially true. Only democratic governments do it. I should have been clearer on that.

It never has.

False. The United States is a great example of it doing so.

This debate right here is a evidence of that.

I see the problem. You think like-minded means Identically minded. It does not mean that. It means similar in values, beliefs, and morality. While we differ on the details, the American public is very like-minded, for the most part. Outliers will exist, but they are scorned and rejected by society.

It makes people follow the laws regardless if they agree or not.

Exactly. Unite the like-minded, reject/punish/ostracize those that are not like-minded.

If we wish to talk of what society actually does, that is what it actually does.

why do you think that is different form what I said?

I will face the former later, but I never said anything I said here is from me.

True, meaning you can't possibly say it isn't a guess. You are simply regurgitating something you've been told, without questioning it in any way, and accepting it as fact despite no evidence to support it as such.



Life exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.

False. Not only do we not take great efforts to preserve life, we often go out of our way to end it.

Of course, thats irrelvent to your claim that there is a natural right to life.


Property exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.

:lol: What are you talking about? Property doesn't exist in nature.


Liberty is the act of doing what you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.

That's not a real definition, it's an imaginary one.

Liberty - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



They are desired conditions of the human species and all natural and take no aggression on others to come about.

Each and every statement you made is demonstrably false.



Well ok, tell me how I did then.

Frankly, it was one of the most abysmal performances I have ever encountered in my life. While I did not expect accuracy, I also did not expect a near total lack of accuracy.

The first two weren't even attempts at definitions and they both contained patently false clauses: 1. that we take effort to preserve life and 2. Property exists in nature.

While the third attempted to be a definition, it was an imaginary definition that is not supported by actual definitions.

If that is your best effort, we are in a sad state of affairs.

Well you haven't provided such evidence.

:prof Just because you have ignored it doesn't mean it is not there.
 
He said that it was an exception, and its not.

No I didn't. anda explained it exactly as it exists, not as you have imagined it to exist.



I believe he already said what you did there.

And it does not mean what you think it means.


His own actions lead to the party having to defend their right to life. I think that is very much in line with the principle I put out of rights ending where others begin. You must have the right to act to protect it. The one is attached to the other at its hip.

and as anda pointed out, the right to life cannot be inalienable if one can alienate their right to life it by virtue of their actions.


All are desired conditions, all our natural, and all take no aggression to gain. No fallacy.

Serious question, do you know what a fallacy is?
 
His own actions lead to the party having to defend their right to life. I think that is very much in line with the principle I put out of rights ending where others begin. You must have the right to act to protect it. The one is attached to the other at its hip.
You appear to be mistaking legal rights for natural rights, deliberately by the look of it. I'm not sure what rhetorical purpose is being served by doing so. What logical benefit is served by claiming natural rights status for socio-legal constructs?
 
You appear to be mistaking legal rights for natural rights, deliberately by the look of it. I'm not sure what rhetorical purpose is being served by doing so. What logical benefit is served by claiming natural rights status for socio-legal constructs?

I don't believe I'm doing that, so..
 
I don't believe I'm doing that, so..

Okay, let me rephrase the question such that you don't need to concede the argument in order to answer it.

Why is it important that these rights that you call 'natural' rights should be recognised as such?
 
Where did you get that idea from?

What do you mean where I got it from? That is what it is.



One logically contradicts the other, as I have demonstrated quite clearly.

They don't logically contradict. One follows the other.

Thus, the right is not inalienable, ergo it is not a natural right.

Yes, you keep saying that.


Who said anything about being in the act of killing another? We're talking about self-defense. This act is not limited to times when life is threatened.

Legally it is not I suppose.

That's a discussion for legal rights, not natural rights.

Again, says who?

False. I've shown it repeatedly. You've just ignored it repeatedly by virtue of invalid logical defenses of a false belief.

Hardly false. Its just a no that is not true argument coming from you.. Hardly worth my time and hardly of value.


Back there? We never left there. Just because you haven't acknowledged the facts does not mean the facts do not remain facts.

There is no facts you have mentioned from what I have seen.

I do not believe you are a competent judge of such things.

Alright, believe what you will.

Speaking of not understanding logic, Where on Earth did you get the very silly idea that that would somehow matter?

You mentioned it, did you not?

:prof That would be the basis for a natural right to self defense argument, not a natural right to life argument. I've clearly stated that a natural right to self-defense can exist. It is a very different thing than a natural right to life.

And like usual I disagree with that assessment.

It has no bearing on a natural right to self defense, as I have already noted, but it absolutely has bearing on the existence of non-existence of a natural right to life.

Perhaps if you explained how the one doesn't follow the other..

Says logic.

That isn't exactly a who, is it now?

Partially true. Only democratic governments do it. I should have been clearer on that.

No one "does" it.

False. The United States is a great example of it doing so.

No it is not. The history of the country and its tension today says that very clearly.

I see the problem. You think like-minded means Identically minded. It does not mean that. It means similar in values, beliefs, and morality. While we differ on the details, the American public is very like-minded, for the most part. Outliers will exist, but they are scorned and rejected by society.

Oh so as long as you scorn the outsiders than government created a like minded society. Interesting..

Exactly. Unite the like-minded, reject/punish/ostracize those that are not like-minded.

Again, interesting.


why do you think that is different form what I said?

Its entirely different since what you said it fails to do.

True, meaning you can't possibly say it isn't a guess. You are simply regurgitating something you've been told, without questioning it in any way, and accepting it as fact despite no evidence to support it as such.

You believe I practice blind faith then. Interesting..

False. Not only do we not take great efforts to preserve life, we often go out of our way to end it.

Well then..
Of course, thats irrelvent to your claim that there is a natural right to life.

Of course it is not.

:lol: What are you talking about? Property doesn't exist in nature.

I'm afraid it does.


So you disagree with it then? I really don't get how my definition is fake though. I didn't make it up.

Each and every statement you made is demonstrably false
.

Well then, you are still here because?

Frankly, it was one of the most abysmal performances I have ever encountered in my life. While I did not expect accuracy, I also did not expect a near total lack of accuracy.

The first two weren't even attempts at definitions and they both contained patently false clauses: 1. that we take effort to preserve life and 2. Property exists in nature.

While the third attempted to be a definition, it was an imaginary definition that is not supported by actual definitions.

If that is your best effort, we are in a sad state of affairs.

Well you are in a good mood.

:prof Just because you have ignored it doesn't mean it is not there.

Honestly, I see nothing. Saying that, in this post you had a link to a list of definitions. That was nice.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean where I got it from? That is what it is.

:lol: the fact that you cannot see why this is fail is pretty hilarious.





They don't logically contradict. One follows the other.

It does not logically follow from it. It is merely th estatement people make after they make the initial statement. Logically, it is contradictory.


Yes, you keep saying that.

It's true. If something is inalienable, it cannot be forfeited because forfeiture is alienating.



Legally it is not I suppose.

Naturally it isn't either. Self-defense acts occur all the time in nature without life being threatened.


Again, says who?

The definitions.



Hardly false. Its just a no that is not true argument come from you.. Hardly worth my time and hardly of value.

Repeating a comforting lie to yourself is just one way that you've chosen to ignore the demonstrated falseness of your beliefs.


There is no facts you have mentioned from what I have seen.

that is because when you choose not to see, you will not see.


Alright, believe what you will.

I will. And I will continue to use logic and acknowledgement of reality as the basis for my beliefs, rather than building my beliefs upon a foundation of blind trust and willful ignorance.



You mentioned it, did you not?

No, I did not. It was a strawman of your own design.



And like usual I disagree with that assessment.

But my position is based on logic and reason, while your disagreement is based on you sa ying" La la la, I'm not listening, you're wrong! I disagree!".

If you disagree, fine, then provide a logical basis for disagreement, not mindless statements of disagreement.



Perhaps if you explained how the one doesn't follow the other..

OK, but first give me an idea of how ignorant you are of logic so that I may know where to begin. Do you know how something follows from something else logically? If you know the answer to this question, then you should already know how it doesn't follow. If you don't know that answer, then do you know what a logical premise is?


That isn't exactly a who, is it now?

Of course not, but I didn't force you into having the false premise that a "who" must be involved for you to be dead wrong. That was a delusion of your own creation.


No one "does" it.

I'll inform reality right away that you have the opinion that it does not exist.



No it is not. The history of the country and its tension today says that very clearly.

I am not responsible for your failure to comprehend the difference between like-minded and identically-minded.



Oh so as long as you scorn the outsiders than government created a like minded society. Interesting..

Government's purpose IS to spurn the unlike minded people who are under it's umbrella of power. That's why, as you so eloquently stated, "If we wish to talk of what society actually does, that is what it actually does."



Its entirely different since what you said it fails to do.

What?



You believe I practice blind faith then.

No, you have demonstrated that you practice blind faith in the concepts which you are supporting. I am merely pointing it out.





Well then..

Do you disagree for some unfathomable reason that we go out of our way to end life?


Of course it is not.

It isn't. It doesn't even attempt to present any logical foundation for a claim of a natural right to life. It merely a statement which mixes a fact with a fiction.

I'm afraid it does.

Name one instance of property existing without human society (i.e as a man-made construct) being present. Just one.



So you disagree with it then?

Not just me, the English language disagrees with it.

I really don't get how my definition is fake though. I didn't make it up.

:prof if you adopt a definitions that somebody else made up, it doesn't change the fact that it is a fake definition.

For example, If I arbitrarily, and devoid of any intelligence or reason, decide to make up a new definition for the word "transgression" that means" the fur which surrounds a donkey's asshole, and you decide to adopt
that definition of your own, it does not become any less fake.
.

Well then, you are still here because?

I did not engage you, you engaged me. I will not allow your false claims, which have been presented as a rebuttal to my claims, to go unchallenged. I have no problem repeatedly demonstrating them to be false.



Well you are in a good mood.

I always am.


Honestly, I see nothing.

That's kind of my point.
 
"Natural law" is doing anything you want to that is possible to do and not doing anything you don't want to.
 
Stop complaining! Romney Halloween masks are outselling the Obama ones. And by history which mask sells more is a surefire indication that candidate will win!

But that said, what this Murdoch person has said is an abomination, an absolute abomination along the same line as that Todd Akin who said rape is legitimate. Now, one can expect that the incidences of rape will increase ten fold. Folks, this insanity has got to stop! One can put the mind set of this Akin and Murdoch in the same category of madness as the taliban and others of their kind with their demented views.


Really? I think Romney's is more scary, why it may be selling more.

But, you're right, Akin and Mourdock are a couple of nuts and represent a big majority of the Republican's party way of thinking.
 
If I was religious and my "god" was into getting thousands of women raped (on a yearly basis) and then pregnant, I'd no longer be religious. Mostly because I'd think that god was a pretty sick son of a bitch. Then again, I'm not religious and the nonsensical beliefs which come with religion don't really apply to me.
 
The short version on the abortion debate is:

Are American women first and foremost incubators for the use of American men, or do they have rights of their own?




Actually, no. Your retarded question has nothing to do with the abortion debate.




OMG - That question IS the abortion debate.

Your response to it is about as dismissive and idiotic as I have ever seen. Shame
 
OMG - That question IS the abortion debate.

Your response to it is about as dismissive and idiotic as I have ever seen. Shame

The assertion that the legality of abortion is about whether or not "women are incubators" is so idiotic it deserves summary dismissal, and it received it.

Shame on anyone so intellectually dishonest as to present such tripe.
 
The assertion that the legality of abortion is about whether or not "women are incubators" is so idiotic it deserves summary dismissal, and it received it.

Shame on anyone so intellectually dishonest as to present such tripe.

so what is the women's role? She is involved somehow isn't she?
 
OMG - That question IS the abortion debate.

Your response to it is about as dismissive and idiotic as I have ever seen. Shame

The right has come to the point of putting a "fetus" ahead of a woman. Shame on them.

To suggest that God would make lemons out of lemonade to create a being, is rather sick.

God doesn't make mistakes. People do.

America has voted, and they're not on the side of such sick thinking.
 
Back
Top Bottom