• 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!

Roe vs Wade can be reversed?

AGENT J said:
You realize that any "argument" based on natural rights would apply to the women also right?
I mean we know your views see women as lessers and want to violate thier rights but any rights argument cant be defended in the "stereotypical" prolife foundation. Banning abortion can only be accomplished by violating the rights of the women both legal and natural and treating her as a lesser to the ZEF

now if you or anybody is ok with that, thats fine but reality and facts wont let you hide from the fact.I fully accept that in most cases i clearly value the born viable woman who is already a citizen over the ZEF who is an unknown and when not viable. :shrug:
Click to expand...

:applaud
 
ludin said:
You realize that natural rights are the foundation of our society right?
in fact they were the building blocks of our country.
Click to expand...

So were some Judeo-Christian principles. But our Constitution and our rights stand just fine without associating them with a fictional higher authority, which is what 'natural rights' are...it's just a workaround so that it sounds like it's not a religious belief. But it is a claim that we are somehow endowed with these 'naturally' by some higher power.

And they are not. All rights, all laws, are a man-made concept.
 
ludin said:
You realize that natural rights are the foundation of our society right?
in fact they were the building blocks of our country.
Click to expand...

Why people are drawn to cite the words contained in a Divorce Decree (aka Declaration of Independence), declare those words to be the ultimate gospel that all must abide by, is beyond me. Natural rights are far from being the building blocks of our country.

You realize that natural rights are a myth based on the premise that some deity grants humans rights, which humans can't alter, diminish, or dismantle. In other words, each individual's social behaviors are "based on their perception" of what a specific right means to them personally. We've got enough problems in the world without attempting to put in practice a mythological rights theory.

There is absolutely no way to instill a common meaning or clear definition of a specific right, which results in common behaviors, which produce common outcomes across all populations, cultures, races, religious beliefs, etc, etc, because of the fact that "such rights exist, by perception only, in the minds of each individual".

In reality....

Natural rights amounts to people being self-will-run-riot.

The Natural rights theory is fundamentally the claim that individuals are free to exercise or engaging in personal and social behaviors "within the confines of what they personally believe a given right entails", or how an individual defines the privileges contained with a given right - while respecting the rights of others to act on their individual perceptions, while engaging in their individual beliefs of what constitutes non-infringing behaviors. <<--- This is total nonsense.

We live in a world of individuals who are actually worlds unto themselves, who to some degree, believe that their perception of the universe, and all things contained within, are the "correct perceptions". Any society that would adopt such a Rights theory as the blueprint for maintaining any successful level of order, you can take it to the bank that social chaos is unavoidable. You can expect to see frequent infringements on "the perceived rights of others", by most, if not all individuals, whether their actions or behaviors are deliberate or not.
 
jaeger19 said:
And you realize that natural rights don't stem from the government right. and that when people are unable to express their wishes.. its their FAMILY that is in the best position to exercise whats best for them and not a government official right?


Why do you think the government should decide peoples medical decisions?
Click to expand...

I never said they did. so why are you arguing against something in never said?
 
Lursa said:
So were some Judeo-Christian principles. But our Constitution and our rights stand just fine without associating them with a fictional higher authority, which is what 'natural rights' are...it's just a workaround so that it sounds like it's not a religious belief. But it is a claim that we are somehow endowed with these 'naturally' by some higher power.

And they are not. All rights, all laws, are a man-made concept.
Click to expand...

If you do not believe in natural rights then you believe in authoritarianism. where anyone with enough power can make you do whatever they want.
No what it means is there We hold these truths to be self evident. Meaning that they have always existed.

"Right" and "privilege" both have many meanings in various contexts. ... (2) a right is usually described as something inherent, fundamental and arising from notions of natural or God-given law, whereas a privilege is often viewed as something "merely" created by a legislative body or a court

A right cannot be taken someone can try to limit it but i as a person can still exercise it regardless.
 
Removable Mind said:
Why people are drawn to cite the words contained in a Divorce Decree (aka Declaration of Independence), declare those words to be the ultimate gospel that all must abide by, is beyond me. Natural rights are far from being the building blocks of our country.

You realize that natural rights are a myth based on the premise that some deity grants humans rights, which humans can't alter, diminish, or dismantle. In other words, each individual's social behaviors are "based on their perception" of what a specific right means to them personally. We've got enough problems in the world without attempting to put in practice a mythological rights theory.

There is absolutely no way to instill a common meaning or clear definition of a specific right, which results in common behaviors, which produce common outcomes across all populations, cultures, races, religious beliefs, etc, etc, because of the fact that "such rights exist, by perception only, in the minds of each individual".

In reality....

Natural rights amounts to people being self-will-run-riot.

The Natural rights theory is fundamentally the claim that individuals are free to exercise or engaging in personal and social behaviors "within the confines of what they personally believe a given right entails", or how an individual defines the privileges contained with a given right - while respecting the rights of others to act on their individual perceptions, while engaging in their individual beliefs of what constitutes non-infringing behaviors. <<--- This is total nonsense.

We live in a world of individuals who are actually worlds unto themselves, who to some degree, believe that their perception of the universe, and all things contained within, are the "correct perceptions". Any society that would adopt such a Rights theory as the blueprint for maintaining any successful level of order, you can take it to the bank that social chaos is unavoidable. You can expect to see frequent infringements on "the perceived rights of others", by most, if not all individuals, whether their actions or behaviors are deliberate or not.
Click to expand...

No they are not far they were incorporated into our constitution and one of the reasons listed for the declaration of independence.
If you look at our pre-amble to our constitution it is even written into it.

No natural rights are not a myth simply because you say so.
No those rights exist because people over time have come to realize that they exist and the importance of their existence.

It is key to the freedoms that you enjoy every day.
 
ludin said:
If you do not believe in natural rights then you believe in authoritarianism. where anyone with enough power can make you do whatever they want.
No what it means is there We hold these truths to be self evident. Meaning that they have always existed.

"Right" and "privilege" both have many meanings in various contexts. ... (2) a right is usually described as something inherent, fundamental and arising from notions of natural or God-given law, whereas a privilege is often viewed as something "merely" created by a legislative body or a court

A right cannot be taken someone can try to limit it but i as a person can still exercise it regardless.
Click to expand...

No, dont tell me what I believe. I believe in the Constitution and the rights set forth in it. They are not imaginary.

And yes, that's exactly what it means, except that our govt is supposed to abide by that Constitution and those rights and that means not becoming authoritarian.

But yes, the govt does have the power, thru SCOTUS to change any or all of them. We have alot of checks and balances to prevent that, but it's not impossible.

"Notions of"...means men thought them up and then attributed them to something or someone (Cuz who's gonna do what Joe Blow says? Need some kind of threat or higher power there.). All rights are a man-made concept.

And factually: a right can be, and is, taken from people all the time. We have our Const. to hopefully make sure that due process is involved if that happens, and that it is proper justice if it is indeed infringed or violated.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
A right cannot be taken someone can try to limit it but i as a person can still exercise it regardless.
Click to expand...

This line is excellent and I appreciate it.

It says exactly the same thing that I've been posting about why the unborn are not 'equal' to born people. The unborn cannot exercise a single right. Not one. Their ability to do so is completely intertwined with and dependent on the mother. (Who can exercise her rights with or without the unborn on board).

It does not mean the unborn have no value. It means IMO that they have less value than born people. Less equal. Is that though anathema to alot of people? It seems so, but more in knee-jerk way than a rational, real-life way.

Would it be nice to say that the unborn are equal to born people and can be treated equally? Sure. But that's not possible, practically or legally.

The irksome thing is that most pro-life supporters refuse to acknowledge that and continue to deny it...claiming irrationally that they do indeed value both equally. (Well, I guess you can if it's your own unborn).
 
Lursa said:
This line is excellent and I appreciate it.

It says exactly the same thing that I've been posting about why the unborn are not 'equal' to born people. The unborn cannot exercise a single right. Not one. Their ability to do so is completely intertwined with and dependent on the mother. (Who can exercise her rights with or without the unborn on board).
Click to expand...

*sigh*
That is a horrible argument to make. Also again authoritarianism at it's finest. IE might makes right.

It does not mean the unborn have no value. It means IMO that they have less value than born people. Less equal. Is that though anathema to alot of people? It seems so, but more in knee-jerk way than a rational, real-life way.
Click to expand...

That is an opinion. How is a healthy baby less valuable than say a person that is permanently disabled and not able to do anything? You are arbitrarily assigning value.
again a horrible argument to make.

Would it be nice to say that the unborn are equal to born people and can be treated equally? Sure. But that's not possible, practically or legally.
Click to expand...

again opinion

The irksome thing is that most pro-life supporters refuse to acknowledge that and continue to deny it...claiming irrationally that they do indeed value both equally. (Well, I guess you can if it's your own unborn).
Click to expand...

The irksome thing is what you just did. You arbitrary assign value to something you honestly have no clue about it just ignore the inherent value of said thing.
 
ludin said:
No they are not far they were incorporated into our constitution and one of the reasons listed for the declaration of independence.
If you look at our pre-amble to our constitution it is even written into it.

No natural rights are not a myth simply because you say so.
No those rights exist because people over time have come to realize that they exist and the importance of their existence.

It is key to the freedoms that you enjoy every day.
Click to expand...

I’ve found that those who subscribe to the Natural Rights theory will leave claw marks before making a serious attempt to devote the time to examine the concept and genuinely dissect the theory and lend themselves to the possibility that they simply can’t reach a logical conclusion that Natural Rights theory has an ounce of merit.

Natural Rights subscribers view it like its virtually a religion.

So be it. Thanks goodness we have a human created constitution and common laws that cut through the confusions that eleminates individuals interpreting how Natural rights circumvent or negate documented laws of the land.
 
ludin said:
The irksome thing is what you just did. You arbitrary assign value to something you honestly have no clue about it just ignore the inherent value of said thing.
Click to expand...

Just like you arbitrarily assign less value to women and thier rights legal and natural and ignore them based on your feelings and your value of such thing :shrug:

you cant have it both ways . . honest objective and educated posters wont let you.

You value the ZEF over the women's rights legal/natural.
millions of others do not, they value the woman more or want something in the middle (equal is factually impossible) which are both pro-choice positions.
 
ludin said:
*sigh*
That is a horrible argument to make. Also again authoritarianism at it's finest. IE might makes right.
Click to expand...

The truth IS that it can end up authoritarian. Even if rights were somehow 'natural,' what stops any govt from doing what it wants? We have a Constitution...but again, the govt can end up getting around it if it wants.

The 'origin' of rights has nothing to do with abuses or violation they could suffer.
ludin said:
That is an opinion. How is a healthy baby less valuable than say a person that is permanently disabled and not able to do anything? You are arbitrarily assigning value.
again a horrible argument to make.

again opinion

The irksome thing is what you just did. You arbitrary assign value to something you honestly have no clue about it just ignore the inherent value of said thing.
Click to expand...

It IS opinion but it's based on a fact that is very very relevant to our rights and how they are enumerated in the Constitution and recognized by the govt.

Equality is the basis. And I proved very clearly that they are not equal in terms of rights. Even if legally enabled, the unborn have zero rights they can exercise. Not only can they not exercise a right independently, there is no right they can exercise physically or practically, that is not completely intertwined with another individual. That inability to exercise ANY rights makes rights moot.

The examples you provided all involved people who of course had some rights to exercise, some functions that enabled them to. And once a person does reach the point where they are wholly dependent on machines, for example, for existence, then the legal right to terminate them exists too.

So my 'opinion' is based on fact...the unborn are not equal to born people and thus, I value born people more. And born people are equal under the law.

SCOTUS has already examined this as well. They considered blacks, and then women, and found them/us equal and recognized our rights as equals. They did the same for the unborn...and did not find them equal.
 
ludin said:
I never said they did. so why are you arguing against something in never said?
Click to expand...

I am not.. I asked you a question. see the question marks?
 
Removable Mind said:
I’ve found that those who subscribe to the Natural Rights theory will leave claw marks before making a serious attempt to devote the time to examine the concept and genuinely dissect the theory and lend themselves to the possibility that they simply can’t reach a logical conclusion that Natural Rights theory has an ounce of merit.

Natural Rights subscribers view it like its virtually a religion.

So be it. Thanks goodness we have a human created constitution and common laws that cut through the confusions that eleminates individuals interpreting how Natural rights circumvent or negate documented laws of the land.
Click to expand...

Actually all logic points to the fact that we have natural rights.

Just an easy logical exercise. Ask yourself.. "did Hitler violate the rights of Jews during the Holocaust".

If you believe he did.. then you believe in natural rights. Because.. at the time.. what he did was perfectly legal under German law. IF our rights are derived solely from government.. then that government cannot violate those rights since it determines what rights you have or don't have.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually all logic points to the fact that we have natural rights.

Just an easy logical exercise. Ask yourself.. "did Hitler violate the rights of Jews during the Holocaust".

If you believe he did.. then you believe in natural rights. Because.. at the time.. what he did was perfectly legal under German law. IF our rights are derived solely from government.. then that government cannot violate those rights since it determines what rights you have or don't have.
Click to expand...

Nope. Natural means something intrinsic in an animal. If humans have natural rights, why dont other animals?

Because man conceptualizes and did so and created rights.

Our rights are solely what is recognized by man. And men make up alot of different groups (populations, societies, nations.) And they dont all globally share the same view of rights. So that's another piece of evidence that rights are not 'natural.'

If those were the Jews natural rights, why did Hitler think it was ok to exterminate them? It wasnt recognized by the Nazis.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually all logic points to the fact that we have natural rights.

Just an easy logical exercise. Ask yourself.. "did Hitler violate the rights of Jews during the Holocaust".

If you believe he did.. then you believe in natural rights. Because.. at the time.. what he did was perfectly legal under German law. IF our rights are derived solely from government.. then that government cannot violate those rights since it determines what rights you have or don't have.
Click to expand...

I’ll have to ponder your perspective.

Thanks
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually all logic points to the fact that we have natural rights.

Just an easy logical exercise. Ask yourself.. "did Hitler violate the rights of Jews during the Holocaust".

If you believe he did.. then you believe in natural rights. Because.. at the time.. what he did was perfectly legal under German law. IF our rights are derived solely from government.. then that government cannot violate those rights since it determines what rights you have or don't have.
Click to expand...

Actually theres ZERO logic that supports FACTUAL natural rights. Logic proves its factually made up and subjective. If you disagree simply provide these natural rights and prove they are factual...it cant be done. Anything you present will be subjective and not natural or factual.

Even your questions about the jews, if i or anybody FEELS thats what hitler did thats all it is, its a feelings. My feelings arent facts. What about the people that feel he didnt?

of course a person is free to believe in natural rights but they do not exist in any other form then subjective manner.
 
jaeger19 said:
I judge people on what they say and there behavior towards other people.
Click to expand...

Given your behavior towards those with whom you disagree on this topic, that's an interesting standard for you to raise.

So.. when I have a patient who is 14 and was beaten and raped repeatedly, then thrown down a set of stairs fracturing her pelvis in multiple places.. who had all her teeth knockout out.. so she could "perform better".. who was kept high and drunk so she would not resist or cry..

And she is pregnant and the pregnancy is going to kill her.. and the baby has no real chance of survival as well.. but will likely just suffer knowing only pain because of the injuries suffered in the womb, not to mention the drugs , fetal alcohol syndrome and being HIV positive?

And she decides to protect her own life and prevent needless suffering of her child and has an abortion.

And anti abortion folks thinks that she is a murderer and should be sent to prison for life?
Click to expand...

Generally they do not - certainly I do not, and while you'll find some nutters (just as you'll find advocates for killing children up to 6 months post-birth among the pro-choice side) out and about, the anti-abortion crowd doesn't either. The exception those of us who are most consistent carve out is bolded, and even if that condition did not exist, I don't think you'll find any of the major pro-life advocacy groups, or demographics, arguing for the imprisonment of a 14 year old child.

That's not projection.. thats fact.
Click to expand...

:) Actually, it is projection. Since you project a simplistic white-hat/black-hate worldview onto your opponent wherein they oppose your desire to care for these women (as opposed to desiring to protect the lives of infants), you projected a false conclusion onto the pro-life movement in exactly the situation you described.

The ones I find that do the projection.. and the self righteous are the ones that call it murder.... the ones that think abortion is just "willy nilly murder".. because of "convenience" . That's abortion is "just birth control".. and is not a very difficult decision for families and women.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of abortions are for birth control reasons - for convenience reasons. That which you describe above is (thankfully) quite rare and (again) there is broad consensus within the pro-life movement that, when a pregnancy will kill the mother, the mother also has a right to life.
 
jaeger19 said:
Your failure to answer the question is noted. I did not say I was "wandering into an ICU ripping patients off machines".

I asked.. and I will ask again.. "If I take my father off life support to end his suffering.. am I a murderer"?

Stop creating strawmen.
Click to expand...

I'm not creating strawmen. I'm pointing out that you have provided insufficient information, and also pointing out that there are definitely situations where removing folks from life support machines is murder (I can think of situations where it is not as well).
 
cpwill said:
Generally they do not - certainly I do not, and while you'll find some nutters (just as you'll find advocates for killing children up to 6 months post-birth among the pro-choice side) out and about, the anti-abortion crowd doesn't either. The exception those of us who are most consistent carve out is bolded, and even if that condition did not exist, I don't think you'll find any of the major pro-life advocacy groups, or demographics, arguing for the imprisonment of a 14 year old child.
Click to expand...

Interesting, which advocates support killing 6 month old babies? Link?

Anyway, "Generally", pregnancy is ALWAYS (lol) a risk for women. Always. And those dangers cannot be predicted or prevented. Simple allowing medically necessary abortions does not save women.

Deaths in childbirth on the rise in the US:

Why are so many U.S. women dying during childbirth? : News

Why are so many U.S. women dying during childbirth? | Metro | stltoday.com

From the article:

"the rate hovers around 15 deaths per 100,000 births"*

"each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death."

"The rate of severe complications during and after delivery have also doubled in the last decade, according to a 2012 federal study. Near-misses, where a woman nearly dies, increased by 27 percent."

"Deaths from*stroke*are also on the rise. A recent CDC study shows pregnancy-related strokes increased by 50 percent in 2006-2007, compared with 1994-1996."
Click to expand...
They are not all predictable or preventable. That's total BS.

No stranger or government has ANY right to demand that a woman take these risks if she does not want a child.

Why are so many U.S. women dying during childbirth? | Metro | stltoday.com

From <http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/183520-pope-says-abortion-evidence-throwaway-culture-w-338-a-22.html?highlight=stroke#post1062797598>

Every year in the U.S., up to 8 percent, or 300,000, of pregnant or postpartum women develop preeclampsia, eclampsia, or a related condition such as HELLP syndrome.
Click to expand...

Roughly 300 women die (of the pre-eclampsia-related syndromes), and another 75,000 women experience “near misses”—severe complications and injury such as organ failure, massive blood loss, permanent disability, and premature birth or death of their babies.*

Usually, the disease resolves with the birth of the baby and placenta. But, it can occur postpartum—indeed, most maternal deaths occur after delivery.
Click to expand...

These numbers are significant and of course, to the women who survive, or the families and friend that lose them, the pain and suffering and sometimes permanent disability are also significant. Even to the loss of income for a family. But I'm pretty sure their families are significantly impacted by their deaths and suffering.


I do not understand the perspective where the unborn should be more entitled to self-determination and a future than a woman. Can you explain?

And do you believe that the govt has the right to force women to take these risks against their will?
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Nope. Natural means something intrinsic in an animal. If humans have natural rights, why dont other animals?

.
Click to expand...

Well... we really don't know if other animals have natural rights. In some animals, the behaviors we see, might just be an expression of "natural rights".

But yes.. man conceptualizes and creates rights.. naturally. Its a produce of our natural abilities that we do such.

And pretty much.. globally we do share the same view of rights.

Why did Hitler think it was okay to exterminate the Jews. Because while hitler felt HE had natural rights. He felt that the Jews had violated them.. that the jews were responsible for the German peoples troubles. and thus he felt justified in what he did.

IF natural rights did not exist.. then the rest of the world would care not a whit for what was done to the Jews.. because it was all legal under Nazi law.

the fact that we have natural rights.. does not mean that people or groups don't violate them.. or per usual.. they only think those rights apply to THEM and not to others.
 
cpwill said:
I'm not creating strawmen. I'm pointing out that you have provided insufficient information, and also pointing out that there are definitely situations where removing folks from life support machines is murder (I can think of situations where it is not as well).
Click to expand...

I provided sufficient information.

Again.. My father is on life support and suffering. I order the lifesupport removed to end his suffering.

Do you want me arrested for murder?
 
jaeger19 said:
Well... we really don't know if other animals have natural rights. In some animals, the behaviors we see, might just be an expression of "natural rights".

But yes.. man conceptualizes and creates rights.. naturally. Its a produce of our natural abilities that we do such.

And pretty much.. globally we do share the same view of rights.

Why did Hitler think it was okay to exterminate the Jews. Because while hitler felt HE had natural rights. He felt that the Jews had violated them.. that the jews were responsible for the German peoples troubles. and thus he felt justified in what he did.

IF natural rights did not exist.. then the rest of the world would care not a whit for what was done to the Jews.. because it was all legal under Nazi law.

the fact that we have natural rights.. does not mean that people or groups don't violate them.. or per usual.. they only think those rights apply to THEM and not to others.
Click to expand...

We build shelter, naturally. We live in tribal groups, naturally.

sorry, aint buyin' it.

What you describe, by your own admission, is imagination. If you dont know if other animals have natural rights, how can you tell if man does? Because man said so. And 'man' has come up with different 'natural rights' across the globe even if there are some core ones in common.

More evidence from your response: Hitler thought it was ok to kill Jews. Jews and much of the rest of the world didnt. But many other societies did.

It's entirely subjective. And man-made.
 
Lursa said:
We build shelter, naturally. We live in tribal groups, naturally.

sorry, aint buyin' it.
Click to expand...

Rights are a social agreement. They don't exist for a solitary individual, the very concept doesn't make sense in that scenario. They're not based on animals. The idea that rights are biologically natural is wrong. Rights are socially natural when universal agreements. There are three: life, expression and self defense. Every group of sane and equal before the law people, throughout time and place, come to these agreements. All rights, human, civil, labor and environmental flow from them.

Aka The Enlightenment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom