Is the right to LIFE an inherent right?

Ok so let me use language that will force you to go beyond semantics.

I possess A head. Why do I own it?

 

Just possessing A head doesn't mean that you own it. For all I know, you stole it. However, you do own your own head.

 

Ok so let me expand. I possess a head in which there is a brain which I control because I am a mind which inhabits it. How and/or why do I own anything?

 

You own it because it is a part of you. Do you even see how absurd this whole thing has become? You're now at the point of claiming that your head isn't yours...as if you wouldn't feel terribly aggrieved if a neighbor came over and used it as a football. After all, it isn't your head, right? It is just A head that doesn't belong to anyone. The neighbor has just as much a right to it as you do. In fact, we'd have to assume that this neighbor could lop off an arm or two of yours without you being able to come up with a justification for why he was wrong to do so. After all, it isn't any different than when you get a haircut for the head that you carry around or trim the nails of the apparently public appendages that don't belong to you.

 

So you are saying ownership is in bodily possession?

Well you started with an absurd assertion and used any number of laughable fallacies to back it up so no im not surprised. Yes your argument is absurd.

Well I know why that would be bad. You haven't told me why using your silly ownership concept though. Now you're using another fallacy. Please make an argument an stop appealing to language or 'how absurd' you think this argument is. These aren't arguments

I don't own it, no. I do possess it though

Why should it belong to someone? In fact wouldn't my head belong to my parents because they created it- that seems to be what your logic of ownership is saying. It's ridiculous

So you're conceding there is no ownership?

But I can come up with a justification - you can't based on your ownership nonsense - you've just admitted it

Why can't someone take what doesn't belong to them?

 

I'll be over shortly to carry away your head...you should have no objection since it doesn't belong to you. LMAO!

Let's see, you don't own your cranium, your brain or your thoughts...hell, you don't own you apparently. How exactly do you claim any entitlement to a life when you don't own one in the first place? It isn't your life, right?

 

I'm going to start collecting kidneys...since nobody owns them then there is no justification for anyone to complain.

 

Right now...not in the distant future....we are growing Human Organs in animals such as Pigs.

Right Now....we are capable of Genetically Engineering a Fertilized Human Egg to be immune to a variety of diseases and live 20% longer a life.

Right Now...we are able to CLONE a Human Being and this raises the question are the two people the same.

AboveAlpha

 

I'm struggling to convince myself you aren't trolling me. Ok let's go for a hypothetical scenario: You and I are rock climbing. We fall and hurt ourselves at some point. I've broken my leg and you've cut your arm. Now there are medical supplies which we equally own. How should distribute/utilize these resources?

 

Now I think you're trolling me. You don't think that you own your own leg but you expect me to believe that you own medical supplies?

 

This debate is not limited to unborn babies. It also applies to adults in wars. Too many young men and women were killed and injured during wars. Except WWI and WWII, no other wars worth fighting.

 

This is ridiculous. You can't even consider a hypothetical test without twisting everything through loaded analysis into a presumptive conclusion. I'm through with this. Anyone can see you aren't here for debate instead you are, perhaps inadvertently but nevertheless mindlessly, repeating yourself to the extent of trolling.

 

No, I really don't understand how someone who contends that they don't own their own body or life can claim to own anything. As far as I can tell you don't think that ownership is a real thing. Like some type of witchcraft or something.

 

Rights only exist for persons, persons only exist if they are alive. Your rights exist while you are a person, when you die you no longer exist. You seem to have trouble with that basic concept.

 

The problem is that most people here are incapable of dealing with any issue other than to find ways to defend their unconsidered viewpoint and will go to any lengths, no matter how absurd, to do so.

 

Yes, the right to life is an inherent life and therefore abortion should be completely and totally illegal like it is in Chile.

 

Please prove why there is a right to life.

 

To Hell with that. You prove there isn't, since that's the position that makes itself so clearly amenable to despotism.

 

A person needs to understand Inalienable Rights before they can understand the Right to Life. There is only one Inalienable Right which is the Right of Sovereignty of the Individual Person. It is the Right of Self and from that all other Inalienable Rights are derived.

All Inalienable Rights are inherent in the Person and cannot conflict with or violate the Inalienable Rights of another Person nor can the create an obligation upon another person.

Prior to birth the "pre-born" has not achieved sovereignty and because it is not a sovereign individual yet it has not established the Right of Self. We can also note that the "pre-born" are imposing an obligation on the woman which prevents it from having the Right of Self as it is not independent from the woman but instead is dependent upon the woman that is a person.

So the Right to Life does exist based upon the Right of Self of the Person but "personhood" is a prerequisite to the Right of Self and the "pre-born" have yet to establish "personhood" upon which the Right of Self is based.

 

You cannot prove a negative, You insist that something exists the onus is on you to prove it.

 

Orrrrrrr..... we make all this (*)(*)(*)(*) up as we go.

 

Horse hockey. If you can't prove there are no elephants living in your closet, you've got real problems.

 

I can prove that my closet is too small to contain an elephant which is an entirely different matter. I can also prove that my closet has the positive description of being empty (or not). I can show you my closet and demonstrate it is empty. How could you prove that a concept like 'rights' do not exist? How could you falsify it? Any claim that cannot be falsified is meaningless.

I cannot prove that something doesn't exist anywhere whether it is God or Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. If you insist that something exists then you must prove it.

 

Some people say that the Constitution only gives the right to life to born humans. What's your response to that argument?

 

No it isn't, obviously, just as it wouldn't be had I used a rat, a baboon, or anything in between.

More to the point, you've just proven that the qualitative distinction you wish to impose between positive and negative claims is nothing but semantical sophistry.

Not my problem.

Please, nobody cares whether intelligent gases in the Andromeda galaxy have rights.