• 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]

JayDubya said:
Disagreed. Whether or not you believe in natural rights, it is quite possible for a government to exist which respects them, codifies this respect into law, and respects them equally among all.
Click to expand...

Your disagreement is irrelevant. If natural rights do not exist in reality, it is utterly impossible for a government to respect them any more than it is possible for a government to respect unicorns. At best they can pretend to respect them, but both actions would be imaginary.
 
Tucker Case said:
If natural rights do not exist in reality, it is utterly impossible for a government to respect them any more than it is possible for a government to respect unicorns. At best they can pretend to respect them, but both actions would be imaginary.
Click to expand...

Your disagreement is irrelevant. If a government codifies a principle or mission statement into law, it's suddenly quite concrete.
 
This is such a twisting of words he obviously meant that god has a purpose for that child as god despite the tragity.
 
Tucker Case said:
Your disagreement is irrelevant. If natural rights do not exist in reality, it is utterly impossible for a government to respect them any more than it is possible for a government to respect unicorns. At best they can pretend to respect them, but both actions would be imaginary.
Click to expand...

Utter absurdity. If the elements we are protecting exist in reality than we can protect them just as easily as long as a way towards those ends exists. Since both exists it hardly matters if the premise behind the idea of rights actually makes any sense in the natural world as the elements it is made up exist and therefore it is a moot point. In short, your protest is one that has really no reason to be said. Unless of course you just wish to turn the thread into a natural rights debate. However then it would be far to obvious the only reason you are interested is to limit protections.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
Your disagreement is irrelevant. If a government codifies a principle or mission statement into law, it's suddenly quite concrete.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that silly idea from? The government can the principle that unicorns are real into law all they want, unicorns will remain imaginary.

furthermore, just because people want to arbitrarily call something a natural right doesn't mean it actually is a natural right. For example, people have this mythical idea that a natural right to life exists. Nothing could be further from the truth. The one thing we know for certain is that nature has made it very clear that we do not have a right to life. If we did, there'd be no such thing as death. We'd all live forever.

But we don't live forever. Nature doesn't allow it.

It can't be a natural right if the only thing that we can guarantee about it is that it will definitely be lost at some time.
 
Henrin said:
And what if it is not?
Click to expand...

Even if natural rights do exist in reality, there is no way of being 100% certain that the things which receive that label are part of that group, or if it is merely wishful thinking on our parts which puts it within that group.
 
Tucker Case said:
Where did you get that silly idea from? The government can the principle that unicorns are real into law all they want, unicorns will remain imaginary.

furthermore, just because people want to arbitrarily call something a natural right doesn't mean it actually is a natural right. For example, people have this mythical idea that a natural right to life exists. Nothing could be further from the truth. The one thing we know for certain is that nature has made it very clear that we do not have a right to life. If we did, there'd be no such thing as death. We'd all live forever.

But we don't live forever. Nature doesn't allow it.

It can't be a natural right if the only thing that we can guarantee about it is that it will definitely be lost at some time.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old no protections exist in nature and therefore there is no such thing as natural rights. Of course, that argument is ignoring that protections has nothing to do with the theory and merely why the state is needed.
 
Henrin said:
Utter absurdity. If the elements we are protecting exist in reality than we can protect them just as easily as long as a way towards those ends exists. Since both exists it hardly matters if the premise behind the idea of rights actually makes any sense in the natural world as the elements it is made up exist and therefore it is a moot point. In short, your protest is one that has really no reason to be said. Unless of course you just wish to turn the thread into a natural rights debate. However then it would be far to obvious the only reason you are interested is to limit protections.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There is no way of knowing when we have accurately discovered a natural right and when we have arbitrarily labeled something as one.

Most of the time, at least. We already know for certain that one thing which has been labeled as a "natural right" has been inaccurately labeled as such because it is a contradiction of nature to label it a "natural right".
 
Please cite to me the natural rights philosopher who said that in order to respect a human right to life we must all be immortals.

I'm sort of thinking you're a bit unfamiliar with the concept, Tucker. No one said you have to agree with the concept, but it would be nice if you understood what you were criticizing.
 
Henrin said:
Ah, the old no protections exist in nature and therefore there is no such thing as natural rights. Of course, that argument is ignoring that protections has nothing to do with the theory and merely why the state is needed.
Click to expand...

False. I'm not talking about protections, I'm talking about certainty within nature itself. No protection can possibly exist which prevents nature from taking its course. We can imagine and codify as many protections as we want and nature will not be deterred.
 
JayDubya said:
Please cite to me the natural rights philosopher who said that in order to respect a human right to life we must all be immortals.
Click to expand...

: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 sort of thinking you're a bit unfamiliar with the concept, Tucker. No one said you have to agree with the concept, but it would be nice if you understood what you were criticizing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Oh my..... Another thread on this? Look people it should not suprise anyone a Christian thinking that something was planned by God. Thats basically the backbone of Christian religion. Anyone suprised needs to wake up. Its really not news.
 
nathanjames1791 said:
Oh my..... Another thread on this? Look people it should not suprise anyone a Christian thinking that something was planned by God. Thats basically the backbone of Christian religion. Anyone suprised needs to wake up. Its really not news.
Click to expand...

Having a happy, carefree life is not the model life or goal of life in the Bible or in Christianity. Life is a collection of trials and temptations in most of Christianity.
 
Tucker Case said:
: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.
Click to expand...
this fact will be ignored by the willfully ignorant and dishonest. Why? because it proves all their BS wrong :D
 
Objective-J said:
this fact will be ignored by the willfully ignorant and dishonest. Why? because it proves all their BS wrong :D
Click to expand...


559375_3965750389249_429026165_n.jpg


This guy thought that he had a natural right to stay dry in his Volvo in Manhattan tonight.Nature and natural law thought otherwise.:2wave:
 
Tucker Case said:
False. I'm not talking about protections, I'm talking about certainty within nature itself.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "certainty" no matter which way you come about the topic.

No protection can possibly exist which prevents nature from taking its course. We can imagine and codify as many protections as we want and nature will not be deterred.
Click to expand...

That is different topic all together. We all die, but we can fight to prevent it when we can.
 
treedancer said:
559375_3965750389249_429026165_n.jpg


This guy thought that he had a natural right to stay dry in his Volvo in Manhattan tonight.Nature and natural law thought otherwise.:2wave:
Click to expand...

All you are doing with that is showing your ignorance in relation to natural rights.
 
Tucker Case said:
Even if natural rights do exist in reality, there is no way of being 100% certain that the things which receive that label are part of that group, or if it is merely wishful thinking on our parts which puts it within that group.
Click to expand...

And why would that be exactly?
 
Tucker Case said:
: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.
Click to expand...

Prove that life doesn't exist in nature and aggression on that life is desirable. Have fun.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
There is no such thing as "certainty" no matter which way you come about the topic.
Click to expand...

Absolutely false. Death is the one thing we can say, without any shadow of a doubt, is a certainty.

Isn't it funny how that's exactly what I'm talking about?



That is different topic all together. We all die, but we can fight to prevent it when we can
Click to expand...

You can't prevent death. That's the myth that people have based on wishful thinking. At best you can postpone it for a miniscule amount of time. At worst, you can't even do that piddling amount.
 
Tucker Case said:
Absolutely false. Death is the one thing we can say, without any shadow of a doubt, is a certainty.

Isn't it funny how that's exactly what I'm talking about?
Click to expand...

Ok, I misunderstood then.

Well yes, we all are born and we all will die.


You can't prevent death. That's the myth that people have based on wishful thinking. At best you can postpone it for a miniscule amount of time. At worst, you can't even do that piddling amount.
Click to expand...

That is what I said more or less. Death will happen, but you can hold it off when possible. I would think the fundamental purpose of government is to stop the people from killing each other to do just that.
 
Henrin said:
And why would that be exactly?
Click to expand...

For the same reason you said "There is no such thing as "certainty" no matter which way you come about the topic. "

Of course, you were incorrect, as there is one thing that is certain (death), but for most everything else, it's accurate.

So how about this, why don't YOU answer your own question here, since you already agreed with my statement which triggered the question only two posts prior to asking the question. Even though you were wrong about the fact that death is certain, you were absolutely correct about the lack of certainty with regard to knowing whether we've accurately labeled a natural right or just engaged in wishful thinking.
 
Henrin said:
Prove that life doesn't exist in nature and aggression on that life is desirable. Have fun.
Click to expand...

Why on Earth would I have to prove those things? They do not relate, in any way, shape, or form to what I'm discussing.
 
Henrin said:
Ok, I misunderstood then.

Well yes, we all are born and we all will die.
Click to expand...

Thus proving that no natural right to life exists.

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




That is what I said more or less. Death will happen, but you can hold it off when possible. I would think the fundamental purpose of government is to stop the people from killing each other to do just that.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom