Can either side give up something so that an intelligent discussion can take place?

vegas giants said:

There is no list of agreed upon natural rights anywhere because they dont exist.

Click to expand...

So then you don't believe you have a natural right to your life????

vegas giants said:

Strike one

Click to expand...

Sorry, this isn't T Ball. You'll have to do better than that.

Court Jester said:

You are confusing natural rights with legal rights.



You make a good point in asking the question of if natural rights existed throughout all of human history.... or in actuality wasn't it the early Greek philosophers began to consider the subject? In the earliest human societies there had to be some ingrained notion of a natural right (life, property/resources) otherwise even the smallest clan or group would be at a constant state of conflict-- expending all of their time and energy defending from that conflict---and therefore unable to hunt, gather food, or procreate. Survival depended on a social order in the human species---even in the simplest forms within any clan or tribe.




I disagree. In metaphysics the questions are always about the relationship between substance and property, the potential and the actual.

Click to expand...

But does the mere existence of a social order necessitate the existence of natural rights? I would argue it does not. Take the ancient Romans for example. They certainly had a well developed social order. But under traditional Roman law, the father had absolute power over his household. He had the legal power of life and death over family members, and could even sell his own children into slavery. To me that doesn't seem particularly in line with any modern conception of natural rights.

weaver2 said:

Is it possible for pro-choice, and anti-abortion people to make compromises that might make possible an intelligent and realistic discussion with the possibility of creating workable laws about women's reproductive role? If so, what beliefs could each side give up?

Click to expand...

Its an invalid premise. The question is really centered on legal abortions, and it doesn't matter, women will have them if they are legal or not.

This topic has been beaten to death. Why doesn't it die?

ecofarm said:

You can do it...

Socially natural, not biologically natural. Social agreement. Three are universal in time and place among those equal before the law and sane: Life, expression and self defense. The agreement to observe such rights so as to preserve them for oneself is driven not merely by self preservation but species preservation. From these rights spring human rights, then civil, labor and environmental. This enlightenment, the philosophical heart of the Enlightenment, is the foundation of the free world. Without socially innate rights, how could there be a concept of injustice.

Click to expand...

Yes, they developed organically. They were recognized, conceptualized, by man.

No other herd or socially hierarchical species did so.

Irredentist said:

But does the mere existence of a social order necessitate the existence of natural rights? I would argue it does not. Take the ancient Romans for example. They certainly had a well developed social order. But under traditional Roman law, the father had absolute power over his household. He had the legal power of life and death over family members, and could even sell his own children into slavery. To me that doesn't seem particularly in line with any modern conception of natural rights.

Click to expand...

Yep, lots of other animals have social orders, social heirarchies.

Do any other animals have rights? Not that I know of but if they are 'natural, inherent, biological,' then it seems like other animals should, right?

Irredentist said:

But does the mere existence of a social order necessitate the existence of natural rights? I would argue it does not. Take the ancient Romans for example. They certainly had a well developed social order. But under traditional Roman law, the father had absolute power over his household. He had the legal power of life and death over family members, and could even sell his own children into slavery. To me that doesn't seem particularly in line with any modern conception of natural rights.

Click to expand...

Again, you are confusing legal rights with natural rights. When the Roman father sold his children into slavery he may have had the legal right to do so under the Roman law, however it should be argued that the act was against the natural rights of the child sold into slavery who's freedom was stolen from him.

Our natural rights were not guaranteed or defended expect for changes in thinking--- and government-- during the last 200 or so years. During the Roman time the emperor rules supreme and any other so called "democracy" was only reserved for a few ruling elite. During the middle ages right were considered to come down from God directly to kings (divine right of kings)---and then beyond that parsed out in varying measure to ruling elites, nobles, or those able to grab power by might.

Jump ahead to the 17th and 18th century and age of enlightenment in Europe, and we have the genesis for the philosophical thought which opened up the ideas of natural rights. It was at this time that both government power and church authority came into question and whether or not rights were merely granted or came from a higher source. It was these changes in thinking which greatly influenced our founding fathers and here in America provided a very radical idea that government should only exist by the consent of the governed with checks and balances in place which LIMITED government and protect individual liberty. It wasn't perfect; it began only protecting white male property owners, but the fundamental concepts were found, and over another 200 years have been accepted and extended to all of the people in the manner in which they should have always been.

Court Jester said:

I am beginning to see why you are so far off track Lursa, of course there are natural rights. Do you not have the right to your life Lursa, or is that something which is granted to you only by statue?

Clearly you must believe you have the right to defend your life don't you? If someone came at you with a knife you could use whatever necessary force you needed to in order to defend your life--- TO SURVIVE.

Click to expand...

Only as recognized and enforced by the govt ("man", an authority). And thru due process...or random act of violence...anyone can take it away.

So no, I do not recognize any natural right to life.

Did you not study philosophy in college? Never took an ethics or reasoning class? Rights are more than just concepts subject to the definition of men; there is a substance to the quality of nature and survival-- including survival within a society of rational human beings capable of reason. If there are no natural rights, and every action is subject to the individual whim, then what prevents anyone from just bursting into your home and eating your liver with a side of fava beans?

Click to expand...

I sure did, 2 degrees and several courses. My first BS was biology, so I know pretty much what's 'natural' and what's not. Lots of human evolution, ethics, sociology, anthro, philosophy, etc too.

And nothing prevents anyone from breaking into your home and doing anything, not even laws.

Many other species have social, hierarchical orders and dont kill at random, nurture young and each other, etc. Wow, you dont know how to connect these dots at all, do you? Your conclusions are terrible.

"Rights" have nothing to do with use of force and violence. Animals use it against others all the time. And rights dont stop a single human from deciding to use force or violence against others.

From a natural/biological perspective we humans are capable of a higher order of reason in order to sustain or own existence; therefore it is NATURAL for us to follow after a system which seeks to recognize and support our natural rights--- otherwise we would as a species be in a constant state of war.. in which we would eventually cease being a species.

Click to expand...

Still doesnt account for the existence of rights...just the use of force, violence agaisnst, cooperation with, etc others, which in your example of wolves, is what's used. They are instinctive traits. Just like reproducing and protecting young.

Wolves recognize nothing but might over right of the alphas. There are no rights...when another is stronger and motivated, it takes that status.

And which other species live in a constant state of war? None...because it would significantly reduce reproduction and the successful raising of offspring, so such instincts are selected against. Again, your conclusions are all wrong.

Does the the wolf not live, hunt, reproduce in packs (a social order)-- and in order to survive and assure the existence of it's species? Traits which are genetically embedded it it's DNA which is it's nature... similar to how it is in a human society.

Click to expand...

Already covered.

I'm not basing my position on defending human life on religion. I have consistently advocated that at the moment of conception the fertilized ovum (zygote) is a blueprint for a new human life in the form of new individual genome. Sorry if you don't see that as science.

Click to expand...

It is science, and as I've already written, science is objective, it applies no value to anything. In science, that human zygote has no more meaning or value than that wolve's zygote.

Please explain what authority recognizes a right to life for the unborn? Something outside a religion. And of course any religion, philosophy, or individual is welcome to believe in such...just not impose it on a secular society and women that do not believe the same.

Nature is a higher authority is it not?

Click to expand...

No, of course not. Is chemistry a higher authority? Is evolution a higher authority? :doh

Nature is the physical world and everything in it.

Court Jester said:

Again, you are confusing legal rights with natural rights. When the Roman father sold his children into slavery he may have had the legal right to do so under the Roman law, however it should be argued that the act was against the natural rights of the child sold into slavery who's freedom was stolen from him.

Our natural rights were not guaranteed or defended expect for changes in thinking--- and government-- during the last 200 or so years. During the Roman time the emperor rules supreme and any other so called "democracy" was only reserved for a few ruling elite. During the middle ages right were considered to come down from God directly to kings (divine right of kings)---and then beyond that parsed out in varying measure to ruling elites, nobles, or those able to grab power by might.

Jump ahead to the 17th and 18th century and age of enlightenment in Europe, and we have the genesis for the philosophical thought which opened up the ideas of natural rights. It was at this time that both government power and church authority came into question and whether or not rights were merely granted or came from a higher source. It was these changes in thinking which greatly influenced our founding fathers and here in America provided a very radical idea that government should only exist by the consent of the governed with checks and balances in place which LIMITED government and protect individual liberty. It wasn't perfect; it began only protecting white male property owners, but the fundamental concepts were found, and over another 200 years have been accepted and extended to all of the people in the manner in which they should have always been.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, that the enlightenment concept of natural rights forms the basis for the modern conception of immutable rights, and therefore the basis for our own legal rights. But that's all it is. That's all natural rights can ever be; a philosophical basis for a legal right. The legal right, when enforced, is real enough, but the philosophical, natural right is by itself, just an abstract concept. It needs the force of law to make it tangible.

Lursa said:

Yep, lots of other animals have social orders, social heirarchies.

Do any other animals have rights? Not that I know of but if they are 'natural, inherent, biological,' then it seems like other animals should, right?

Click to expand...

I think it silly to conclude that "rights" as we have as humans are available to animals in the same way they are with humans. Clearly we as omnivores consume animals despite the wacky beliefs of PETA and other groups. We consume animals because it is our NATURE to do so. And being that we humans are also blessed with higher reason, we know it is wrong to abuse animals, or destroy them arbitrarily just as much as it would be unreasonable to just burn down all of the trees.

Humans are to be stewards of animals and nature if only for the good of we humans. Makes logical sense.

Court Jester said:

Yes, I understand that. You are quoting me out of context within the discussion I was having with another. I said if you kill a fetus it isn't "viable" or otherwise after that point--- it is just dead.

Click to expand...

Fetal viability refers to the gestional development at which if expelled it can survive without the bio mom.

A nurse, the father or another caretaker can feed and take care of the infant.

You are aware that a newborn isn't able to "sustain it's life" without the mother--- or some other responsible human willing to give that child tender and loving care? Maybe you know of a lot of newborns, toddlers--- or even pre-adolestants which are capable of surviving on their own without caring responsible adults?

Click to expand...

I am aware a newborn needs care but if dies or wishes to turn over the care to someone else she can.
See above.

Sadly you count yourself among those who are willing to apply humanity to a developing fetus only based on his/her ability to pop out of the mommy and care for itself. Other than fish and reptiles, I can't think of too many creatures which don't need their mother's help after being born--- do you?

Click to expand...

Again you are wrong. Please see where I expeplained fetal viability to you.

Yeah Minnie, you are really good at searching the innerwebs for somebody else's philosophy on defining humanity. I would challenge you Minnie to do some self introspection (based on your own stated beliefs) and attempt to have an awakening of your own consciousness. One which would actually be congruent to your so called "Christian" beliefs.

Click to expand...

I have faith and I am pro choice as is my Protestant Church .

From the Religious Coaliation for Reproductive Choice:

RCRC is unique in the reproductive health, rights and justice movements, because it draws on the moral power of diverse religious communities.
...
Good policy allows people of all religions to follow their own faiths and consciences in their own lives. In reproductive health, rights and justice, we define religious liberty as the right of a woman to make thoughtful decisions in private consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith. The religious beliefs of others should not interfere.

Click to expand...

The Moral Case – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Night_Ranger said:

Spoke like a true socialist.

Are you intentionally ignoring "life liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with natural rights.

And I am not a socialist. Pay attention to the stated political lean.

Irredentist said:

I agree with you, that the enlightenment concept of natural rights forms the basis for the modern conception of immutable rights, and therefore the basis for our own legal rights. But that's all it is. That's all natural rights can ever be; a philosophical basis for a legal right. The legal right, when enforced, is real enough, but the philosophical, natural right is by itself, just an abstract concept.

Click to expand...

I still say it is more than just an abstract concept and I would demonstrated in this manner:

A government/jurisdiction makes a law which states that a person has the right to use lethal force when it becomes reasonable to defend their life from a malicious life threatening attack. They write the law which makes the killing of another in that situation justifiable homicide. But since as I believe the right to your life--- and defending that right is a 'natural right' then the right already exists apart from any legislation required in justifying that use of force. Clearly it is reasonable and natural to actions which ensure your survival. Life is natural, as is defending that life, not only in human society, but in animal society and the rest of nature as well. Therefore it is more than just an abstract concept.

Irredentist said:

It needs the force of law to make it tangible.

Click to expand...

I believe the better way of saying it is that in needs the force of ACTION to ensure that it is effected. It is tangible because it is natural, it is justifiable because it is natural. And being that it is natural it a quality that exists beyond just being a concept. A quality of rights which a government which honors natural rights will then seek to defend from the inclination of government to deny or diminish those natural rights.

right to life
right to liberty
right to property
right to due process
right to defense
right to equal opportunity
right to happiness
right to free association

and so on and so forth

Court Jester said:

Ask yourself what is the "nature" of an apex predator like the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)? And then ask yourself what is the nature of a human (Homo sapiens)? There is nothing inconsistent with what I have said and your example of a person alone in the woods being eaten by a grizzly bear.

Natural rights in terms of human society are not immune to the random violence of nature any more than a grizzly bear cannot be killed by another grizzly bear--- or buried in a sudden avalanche during a winter storm.

Here in the States my Canadian friend we call that, "swing and a miss". But nice try.

Click to expand...

Your post isn't making any sense.

minnie616 said:

I have faith and I am pro choice as is my Protestant Church .

From the Religious Coaliation for Reproductive Choice:

Click to expand...

Oh I see, the RCRC... a group that is in lock step with Planned Parenthood.

Explains everything. And here I assumed your were just a Catholic who had drifted from the pack for reasons of a lack of understanding of knowledge of your own faith.

Which Protestant sect are you a member of if you don't mind me asking? Just curious.

Court Jester said:

I still say it is more than just an abstract concept and I would demonstrated in this manner:

A government/jurisdiction makes a law which states that a person has the right to use lethal force when it becomes reasonable to defend their life from a malicious life threatening attack. They write the law which makes the killing of another in that situation justifiable homicide. But since as I believe the right to your life--- and defending that right is a 'natural right' then the right already exists apart from any legislation required in justifying that use of force. Clearly it is reasonable and natural to actions which ensure your survival. Life is natural, as is defending that life, not only in human society, but in animal society and the rest of nature as well. Therefore it is more than just an abstract concept.




I believe the better way of saying it is that in needs the force of ACTION to ensure that it is effected. It is tangible because it is natural, it is justifiable because it is natural. And being that it is natural it a quality that exists beyond just being a concept. A quality of rights which a government which honors natural rights will then seek to defend from the inclination of government to deny or diminish those natural rights.

right to life
right to liberty
right to property
right to due process
right to defense
right to equal opportunity
right to happiness
right to free association

and so on and so forth

Click to expand...

All living creatures have a biological imperative to survive. But is that the same thing as saying that we have a natural right to live? Certainly we have the desire to live, but another creature might just as easily desire to take our life, in order to guaruntee its own survival.

Are natural rights simply an attempt by humans to codify and protect their own basic biological desires?

Irredentist said:

It does not make much sense to think of rights existing outside of the context of human society, because a right by definition is a legal entitlement to something, and you cannot have a legal entitlement to something without a society capable of enforcing that entitlement. You can believe that rights come from a higher power, that they exist as part of the natural order. That can even be the basis of your legal system if you want, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a very Noble and significant idea, that humans have immutable rights. But for most of human history that wasn't considered to be the case. And if no one is willing to enforce the natural rights of man, then effectively they do not exist, regardless of the philosophical basis behind said natural, immutable rights.

Click to expand...

Night_Ranger said:

Spoke like a true socialist.

Are you intentionally ignoring "life liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"?

Click to expand...

The born person has those rights and unborn has no rights.

Lursa said:

Only as recognized and enforced by the govt ("man", an authority). And thru due process...or random act of violence...anyone can take it away.

So no, I do not recognize any natural right to life.

Click to expand...

So then how would you proscribe punishment or accountability upon anyone who takes an innocent life? If their is no right to life, then there can be no prohibition on taking a life.

Lursa said:

And nothing prevents anyone from breaking into your home and doing anything, not even laws.

Click to expand...

Other than A) my willingness to defend my life by force of action and/or B) the retributive justice of law (state law).... or C) another component of the 'natural law'--- which takes us right back to "A".

Lursa said:

Many other species have social, hierarchical orders and dont kill at random, nurture young and each other, etc. Wow, you dont know how to connect these dots at all, do you? Your conclusions are terrible.

Click to expand...

This comment makes no sense. What is your point?

Lursa said:

"Rights" have nothing to do with use of force and violence. Animals use it against others all the time. And rights dont stop a single human from deciding to use force or violence against others.

Click to expand...

You are conflating things I never said. Go back and read again what I said about nature, and what I said about natural rights within HUMAN society.

Plus I never said having a "right" did not mean another-- or the government could not violate that right. Try to keep up. I was speaking to how the right to life of an innocent developing human is being denied to them.

Court Jester said:

I think it silly to conclude that "rights" as we have as humans are available to animals in the same way they are with humans. Clearly we as omnivores consume animals despite the wacky beliefs of PETA and other groups. We consume animals because it is our NATURE to do so. And being that we humans are also blessed with higher reason, we know it is wrong to abuse animals, or destroy them arbitrarily just as much as it would be unreasonable to just burn down all of the trees.

Humans are to be stewards of animals and nature if only for the good of we humans. Makes logical sense.

Click to expand...

??? So now you are back to religious dogma.

Humans are only animals with more highly evolved intelligence...nature has conferred no value or additional status or 'stewardship' of anything on humans. Do you think that 'nature' has conferred more value on or status on chimps over rabbits?

Let's see any of your suppositions supported in a biology or other scientific text please?

We only have 'rights' because we thought them up and then codified them and chose to enforce them.

And the blue is a perfect example of why you're wrong. In recent history, humans have done all those things...hunted animals to extinction, deforested entire countries (see England), and we still abuse animals :doh

Court Jester said:

Oh I see, the RCRC... a group that is in lock step with Planned Parenthood.

Explains everything. And here I assumed your were just a Catholic who had drifted from the pack for reasons of a lack of understanding of knowledge of your own faith.

Which Protestant sect are you a member of if you don't mind me asking? Just curious.

Click to expand...

The RCRC has a proud history starting in 1967 through the present.



A Proud History as a Voice for Conscience and Justice
1967 | Pro-choice clergy in New York form the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion to assist women seeking abortions to find safe services. The founder, Reverend Howard Moody of Judson Memorial Church in New York, was an American Baptist minister. [/B[ Within a year, the clergy service has 1,400 members throughout the nation.

1973 | Mainline Protestant and Jewish leaders meet at the United Methodist Building in Washington, DC, to discuss the Roman Catholic Church’s pledge to overturn the new U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. This meeting, called by the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, leads to the formation of the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights (RCAR).

1974 | RCAR adopts policy position on “conscience clauses,” stating publicly funded healthcare institutions — unlike individuals — have no legal right to refuse to provide abortion services.

<SNIP>

1993 | RCAR broadens its mission and changes its name to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC).

<SNIP>

2000 | RCRC commissions its first national poll on religion and choice, finding widespread support for decisions of conscience. | 40 religious organizations join RCRC brief in Supreme Court case Stenberg v. Carhart.
—————-

By the way Catholics for Choice are a member of the RCRC.

I am a member of a Mainline Protestant pro choice Religion.

Are you a member of a religious faith If you don’t mind my asking ? Which one ?

Just curious.

Court Jester said:

So then how would you proscribe punishment or accountability upon anyone who takes an innocent life? If their is no right to life, then there can be no prohibition on taking a life.

Click to expand...

We have recognized rights...where did I ever say we didnt? WE...MAN...conceived those rights and recognized them for specific individuals and then created laws intended to protect those rights.

Our govt specifically has chosen not to recognize rights for the unborn (based on multiple interpretations of the Const). So has every national and global human rights organization. (except for some religious ones).

Other than A) my willingness to defend my life by force of action and/or B) the retributive justice of law (state law).... or C) another component of the 'natural law'--- which takes us right back to "A".

Click to expand...

This doesnt make any sense. Nothing stops another person OR other animal from deciding to try and take your life. You could be wearing a sign that said you had a right to life and if they chose to ignore it...they would do so and attempt to take your life. :doh

This comment makes no sense. What is your point?

Click to expand...

That the conclusions you draw from erroneous parallels obviously dont work.

You are conflating things I never said. Go back and read again what I said about nature, and what I said about natural rights within HUMAN society.

Click to expand...

Why would only humans have natural rights and not other animals? If they are natural, why dont other animals have them?

Plus I never said having a "right" did not mean another-- or the government could not violate that right. Try to keep up. I was speaking to how the right to life of an innocent developing human is being denied to them.

Click to expand...

And yet, you never explained what authority claimed the unborn human had any rights. More than one of us have already shown that no one has a right to anything that is not recognized. And in the US, that is not recognized.

You certainly have not proven that 'natural' rights exist and I did request biological or other scientific proof.

Irredentist said:

All living creatures have a biological imperative to survive. But is that the same thing as saying that we have a natural right to live?

Click to expand...

I think it does. As a humans I believe we are set apart from animals by virtue of our higher reasoning. So when I speak of humans in nature, I also add that we have progressed far beyond or original state of nature; one in which we were in constant conflict in our original state of being.

So yes, I believe we humans all generally agree that there is a natural right to life (as well as the other things I listed) otherwise to live in constant conflict and war is to our detriment and probably our extinction.

Irredentist said:

Certainly we have the desire to live, but another creature might just as easily desire to take our life, in order to guaruntee its own survival.

Click to expand...

Absolutly another animal can do that as part of nature. There is no immorality in that possibility, everything needs to survive and we must defend ourselves from animals same way we must defend from other humans who would prevent our survival.

Irredentist said:

Are natural rights simply an attempt by humans to codify and protect their own basic biological desires?

Click to expand...

Yes and no. For one I think they exist as part of human society as the natural means to assure our survival and then by extension of our higher reasoning our liberty and other important human values. But I don't think as you do that it is merely a means to codify a biological desire. It is more of a means to assure order within the context of our social contracts in society, especially since the age of reason.

Our founding fathers (especially Jefferson) were greatly influenced by people like John Locke who said that everyone was entitled to unalienable rights from their creator. Now one could just make that claim about individual rights the same way it used to be the excuse for the "divine right of kings" I suppose. Because when it comes to theology just about anything can be inserted as the source of creation or nature. But in my view you don't need a "creator" in the sense of God figure to believe in inalienable rights. Call it from "God", or from nature-- but we humans have something apart of animals, and I think most people accept that--- religious people and atheists alike--- humankind is something far above the rest of nature or "creation" ---however you prefer to view it.

Lursa said:

We have recognized rights...where did I ever say we didnt? WE...MAN...conceived those rights and recognized them for specific individuals and then created laws intended to protect those rights.

Our govt specifically has chosen not to recognize rights for the unborn (based on multiple interpretations of the Const). So has every national and global human rights organization. (except for some religious ones).

Click to expand...

But you have already been proven wrong on this as Roe allows states to DEFEND and PROTECT fetuses during the 3rd trimester. How is this possible other than the extension of RIGHTS to the human fetus?

Lursa said:

This doesnt make any sense. Nothing stops another person OR other animal from deciding to try and take your life. You could be wearing a sign that said you had a right to life and if they chose to ignore it...they would do so and attempt to take your life. :doh

Click to expand...

Why is it so difficult a concept for you to understand that just because there is an individual right to equal protecton, due process, or life, that there is no gaurantee it will be honored?

Are African-Americans equal in humanity and value to White people? Yes or No?

OF COURSE THEY ARE. And why are the equal--- because the law now says they are equal, or weren't the equal in humanity and value BEFORE the 14th Amendment--- thus a NATURAL RIGHT which they always had and were ALWAYS entitled to even despite it being denied to them. Black people are equal NOT because some men in black robes FINALLY got around to admitting they were---they are and were always the same Lursa---- naturally i.e 'natural right'.

Doesn't mean it can't be denied or not protected Lursa-- try to keep up.

Lursa said:

That the conclusions you draw from erroneous parallels obviously dont work.

Click to expand...

Take a breath and try to concentrate. This isn't rocket surgery.

Lursa said:

Why would only humans have natural rights and not other animals? If they are natural, why dont other animals have them?

Click to expand...

Humans right are subject to human society and human nature. Animals live under there own various instincts and rules of nature which are different than ours. Which isn't to say they can't eat us or we eat them. Do I really need to spend time here pointing out the difference between human nature and animal nature. But hey, maybe you are one that doesn't see the differentiation--- you wouldn't be the first pro abortion progressive that doesn't understand the difference between human kind and animal kind. Lursa you seem to have difficulty telling the difference between a human fetus and a potted plant (per something you previously stated about there being no difference in value between the two).

Lursa said:

And yet, you never explained what authority claimed the unborn human had any rights. More than one of us have already shown that no one has a right to anything that is not recognized. And in the US, that is not recognized.

Click to expand...

I explained it more than once, I am not going to continue to explain and/or demonstrate concept to you that your mind is already set to deny anyway. You claim a human fetus is a virtual "vaccum" when it comes to value or humanity. How then will you ever understand the basis for a huma

Lursa said:

You certainly have not proven that 'natural' rights exist and I did request biological or other scientific proof.

Click to expand...

No problem Lursa, it is clear that in your reality there are no natural rights to life for anyone. Not humans, not babies, not fetuses---nothing. I suppose you see the universe merely as a swirling ball of chaos without any order other that what people are willing to do.

Court Jester said:

But you have already been proven wrong on this as Roe allows states to DEFEND and PROTECT fetuses during the 3rd trimester. How is this possible other than the extension of RIGHTS to the human fetus?

Click to expand...

We did discuss it. No right is completely inviolable.

Not only that, no state has yet challenged that ruling...because such abortions never occur. It's a non-issue.

And if you read the decision, it explicitly still says it does not extend rights to the unborn...it explicitly says that the state may protect the unborn 'in its own (the state's) interests.' See? You still dont understand this.

Why is it so difficult a concept for you to understand that just because there is an individual right to equal protecton, due process, or life, that there is no gaurantee it will be honored?

Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's exactly what I've been writing and as such, it undermines your claims about natural rights. :roll:

Are African-Americans equal in humanity and value to White people? Yes or No?

OF COURSE THEY ARE. And why are the equal--- because the law now says they are equal, or weren't the equal in humanity and value BEFORE the 14th Amendment--- thus a NATURAL RIGHT which they always had and were ALWAYS entitled to even despite it being denied to them. Black people are equal NOT because some men in black robes FINALLY got around to admitting they were---they are and were always the same Lursa---- naturally i.e 'natural right'.

Click to expand...

Not a single thing about what you wrote indicates a natural right :doh SCOTUS examined blacks and women separately regarding their/our status and rights. Using their interpretations of the Const. And that legal body RECOGNIZED our rights...hence, those rights apply to us. SCOTUS did the same thing for the unborn, using the same Const...and found that the unborn are not equal and they recognized no rights.

Nothing 'natural' here...all judicial process. :doh

Doesn't mean it can't be denied or not protected Lursa-- try to keep up.

Click to expand...

Um...after examination under the Const...that's pretty much what it means for the unborn. :roll: OTOH, if they were to attempt to recognize rights for the unborn (which would require a new amendment) they would still have to craft laws that continued to protect women's rights and you have never managed to explain the justifications and legal basis the courts would have for that. I'm still waiting...when can you provide that? Because again, the unborn and born cannot be protected equally under the law. You have yet to explain how if you disagree.

Humans right are subject to human society and human nature. Animals live under there own various instincts and rules of nature which are different than ours. Which isn't to say they can't eat us or we eat them. Do I really need to spend time here pointing out the difference between human nature and animal nature. But hey, maybe you are one that doesn't see the differentiation--- you wouldn't be the first pro abortion progressive that doesn't understand the difference between human kind and animal kind. Lursa you seem to have difficulty telling the difference between a human fetus and a potted plant (per something you previously stated about there being no difference in value between the two).

Click to expand...

So you are reduced to outright lying to cover up the fact that you are in way over your head in this discussion. You are lying because you were unable to explain why you value the innocence of emptiness, a vacuum, that the unborn have in common with plants, see, either you dont understand the distinction made there...inability to read at a mature level, or you are lying, which is it?

And you only demonstrate your poor understanding of the difference between human intelligence developing a more complex society than animals....and instinct. That's also sad. You seem to continually confuse instinct with rights. Your foundation for this discussion is once again...inadequate and you are resorting to personal attacks and lying to attempt to divert from it.

I explained it more than once, I am not going to continue to explain and/or demonstrate concept to you that your mind is already set to deny anyway. You claim a human fetus is a virtual "vaccum" when it comes to value or humanity. How then will you ever understand the basis for a huma

Click to expand...

You claimed 'natural rights,' which has been demonstrated as wrong. So you are not capable of refuting my argument then? Good.

No problem Lursa, it is clear that in your reality there are no natural rights to life for anyone. Not humans, not babies, not fetuses, nothing. I suppose you see the universe merely as a swirling ball of chaos without any order other that what people are willing to do.

Click to expand...

LMAO, the first half is correct and the 2nd half is more proof of your awful and inaccurate conclusions! :lol:

Court Jester said:

But you have already been proven wrong on this as Roe allows states to DEFEND and PROTECT fetuses during the 3rd trimester. How is this possible other than the extension of RIGHTS to the human fetus?
...

Click to expand...

The unborn have no rights.

Roe DOES NOT protect the fetus during the 3rd Trimester. As I said a fetus/ unborn has no rights.

Roe said that states could take a compelling interest

When Roe was decided Roe took into concideration the woman and her doctors right to privacy and the states right in potential citizen.

Roe decided the first two trimesters the woman and her doctor decided. States could only take interest in the woman’s health during the second trimester but not the first trimester.

States could take a compelling interest in the last trimester and ban abortion unless the pregnancy threatened her life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued.

Several states have no laws regarding abortions.

Court Jester said:

...And here I assumed your were just a Catholic who had drifted from the pack for reasons of a lack of understanding of knowledge of your own faith.
...

Click to expand...

Actually , I sincerely believe that Pro Choice Catholic’s have a better understanding and knowledge of their Catholic faith and the importance of his or her well- informed conscience.

Here is a <SNIP> written by a Pro choice Catholic:

Catherine’s Story

<SNIP>

Finally, I am a prochoice Catholic because my Catholic faith tells me I can be.
The Catechism reads, “[Conscience] is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary.

There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.” Even St. Thomas Aquinas said it would be better to be excommunicated than to neglect your individual conscience. So really, I am just following his lead. After years of research, discernment and prayer, my conscience has been well informed.

Being a prochoice Catholic does not contradict my faith; rather, in following my well-informed conscience, I am adhering to the central tenet of Catholic teaching -- the primacy of conscience.

My hope is that together the hierarchy of the Catholic church, the antiabortion movement and the prochoice movement will help people of all faiths and no faith to develop well-informed consciences.

However, this can only be done by talking about the whole picture -- from the dangers of unsafe abortion to the importance of preventing unintended pregnancy.
By narrowing our focus to the legalization/illegalization of abortion, we are ignoring the realities which women and families face around the world. And that’s not serving anyone.

I think groups like RCRC and CFFC are really important resources. Until I found out about them, I had my opinions that differed from my church, but I didn't know of Bible passages I could refer to that affirmed my point of view. The discussions I've been able to attend at Choice USA GSLIs (Gloria Steinem Leadership Institutes) have been very important to me.

Before, I didn't realize that the position of the Catholic Church on abortion is not canon law:
as a Catholic, it's completely within my rights to disagree with the church's position on that issue, and several Catholic theologians do.

Religious pro-choice groups are incredible sources that helped me reconcile whatever struggle I had between my faith and my pro-choice views.

Click to expand...