That's because you're misrepresenting the argument.
A) Natural rights aren't the only "rights". There are also Legal "rights" (though I'd call them privilege)
All rights are legal rights.
That aside, which is the natural right, the right of the baby to live, or the right of the woman to "control her own body"?
Hmmm?
Let's put it this way, I'm not going to make the effort the replace "right to commit murder on her unborn child" to "right to control who and if anyone occupies her uterus". That's not a material alteration since for the purposes of this argument it was assumed, and I hope it didn't need to be stated, that the process of murdering the child was merely the abortion procedure of your choice.
So state explicitly: Is the right of a woman to control her body and thereby the occupancy of her uterus a natural right in your theory, or is it not?
This question must be answered by you.
B) While all humans share the same base rights (natural rights), the use of violence and force can affect the exercise of those rights.
Demonstrate relevance to refutation of proof I've provided, otherwise it's just a non-sequitur.
C) Legal rights and natural rights can be in conflict with each other, the one which "wins" is the one enforced through government force.
Uh-huh. And can the natural right of the unborn human to live be in conflict with the natural right of the incubating mother to control her own body?
Which right does not exist as a natural right? Remember, since rights are innate, there cannot exist a temporary suspension of the right of the mother to control her own body while knocked up. Look up the word "inalienable" sometime.
D) Even if a natural right is not exercisable by a group does not mean the right does not exist.
We're not discussing a group. We're discussing two people whose natural rights cancel out. One right ceases to exist. That isn't possible for inalienable rights.
The natural right still exists, it's merely being suppressed. Legal rights are floppy and can be "removed" (hence my labeling of them as privilege). Natural rights are static.
Under no point in the proof rejecting natural rights did I confuse a "natural right" with a "legal right".
Hence, both of your arguments are MISREPRESENTATIONS of the argument.
This conclusion is based on the false assumption that I'm positing a legal right as a natural right. Since your assumption is false, your conclusion is not valid.
As I had stated from the get go.
Yes, you're still wrong, see the preceding remark.
Because you're pretending that all rights are either legal rights or natural rights
Identify the other classes outside of legal and natural.
We're turning blue in anticipation.
and by defining rights through purely functional means.
Did anyone ever inform you that rights, be they natural or legal, are merely definitions of allowable expressions of human behavior, ie "functional"?
If you disagree, name a non-functional right.
Okay, Let's take your slave argument for instance.
By all means, don't go anywhere near the rightfully deadly mother and rightfully living unborn child.
There were slaves, true. But slavery was never a right, it was a legal process codified through a govenrment; but it was not a right.
You sure about that? What government authorized Robinson Crusoe to make Friday his slave, to use an example from fiction for easy reference.
Slavery predates government.
You don't have the right to own another human as you infringe upon their right of life, liberty, and property (not withstanding that you can't actually have alludial title over another human).
If the government grants the title, they can have title. Just ask Dred Scot. Since slaves were born, lived, and died in bondage, at every instant of their lives subject to sale for cash, they were nothing but property and had no legal basis for presenting suits in court.
That's the fact of human slavery in the United States. If you're trying to say the soul can't be owned, that's nice. The box the soul was in was very much for sale and ownership.
You're problem is you've decided that you're going to be the arbiter of what is and what is not a "natural" right, and your feelings tell you that people can't be owned, which flies in the face of human history.
As you stated, rights exist whether they're expressed or not. Presently, force is being used to suppress the rights of people to own other people. If and when that force expires, rest assured that people will resume their habit of owning others.
You're assuming that today's state of affairs, based on your innate moral sense, somehow reflects reality. You can't show that slave ownership is not a natural right. You've argued that natural rights exist even in suppression. Merely because some people own slaves and suprress their slaves right to own others does not contrue proof that slave ownership is not a natural right.
What you're really arguing here is that because people have a natural right to be free then people can't have a natural right to own slaves, and you're blind to the fact that the opposite statement is equally true, namely, that if people have a natural right to own slaves, then people can't have a natural right to be free.
Your emotions, not logic, cause you to decide that one is "natural" and not the other, even though you yourself claim that rights exist in suppression.
Logically, EITHER alternative, given your postulates, is possible and real. You're stating that mutually exclusive rights exist.
Viable cultures have existed in history in which the natural right to own slaves is exercised, and others in which the natural right to not be owned are exercised. That the latter case is the modern norm does not alter the facts of history.
You've failed to define what a "natural right" is to the exclusion of their contradictory opposites.
Since either alternative may exist, it's simple to recognize that neither, in fact, have any need to exist, and that human societies are expressions of the balance of powers between groups and individuals, and that discussions of "rights" are nothing more than discussiong on the limitations of those powers.
YOU established the existence of non-expressed rights. That axiom leads ineluctably to the conclusion that the idea of rights is not an essential element in discussing human societies, merely a verbal atavism held over from the superstitious times when it was assumed the rights of society descended from God.
You can't understand this because you can't surrender your superstitions.
It took me years to gain the epiphany, and I know many aren't up to the task. But it can't hurt you to try.
The slaves still had the right to life, liberty, and property; the exercise of these rights were forcibly suppressed via the government.
So, don't tell me you didn't say that rights suppressed don't exist. Current society suppresses the right of people to own other people.
This is understood explicitly in the rise and fight against slavery. If the slaves truly had no right to life, liberty, or property than there is no justifiable reason by which they could revolt or run away or even complain. However, we recognize and understand that anyone enslaved would have obvious contention to that state of being. That is because innately that person has the right to liberty.
And the right to own other people is suppressed. Exactly.
What you've failed to do is prove that the right to own others does not exist.
I've proved that the use of the concept of rights in language is a convenience encouraging mental sloth, and nothing but a convenience. It is not an accurate description of processes of human interaction.
The same with abortion, a legal "right" is enforced via government force at the cost of suppression of the exercise of a natural right. The human life has its right, and its right to life is violently suppressed by the government. It's not that the right doesn't exist, it's that force has been applied to suppress the exercise of it. In the natural state, free of force, all humans enjoy the right to life, liberty, and property.
So you're arguing that the woman's natural right to control her own body does not exist? Women have to pretend that the technologies developed in the last century can't be applied to them in certain circumstances?
What I was arguing in that case was that the free expression of one right, that of bodily ownership and control, contradicts and nullifies the free expression of another right, that of life. We're not discussing an abuse of power suppressing rights, but the free expression of the rights themselves.
Hence all your arguments are misrepresentations of the natural rights argument
No, actually, the right of a woman to control her own bod is a natural right. That modern technology enables a more in-depth control than was previously experienced is irrelevant.
and you actually didn't prove a single thing other than you're able to completely mischaracterize an argument. Though I wouldn't tout that as a good thing.
Yeah, you're still wrong. I've point out, again, at length, again, your errors, and you'll continue to refuse to use your mind productively and will continue to wallow in your emotional substitute for reason.
