Is the right to LIFE an inherent right?

Ok lets use a rat. I know that my cupboard has a fixed space with no hidden compartments. I can show that empty fixed space and can prove that nothing else can fit in that space. This same process was used to demonstrate that the Loch Ness monster could not possibly exist since the fish stocks in Loch Ness could not sustain a breeding pair of such animals. It doesn't disprove that the monster exists in some other place though

I have not done anything of the sort merely explained how one can prove that something physical doesn't exist within certain dimensions. It does not deal with concepts.

Its very much your problem. You insist that something exists and yet cannot prove its existence. You demand that I disprove its existence yet refuse to give the criteria by which you would accept it disproven. If it is not falsifiable then it is meaningless

You are demanding that I prove that rights do not exist so clearly I would have to prove that rights do not exist everywhere. WHich is impossible.

 

The argument against the inalienable/natural Rights of the Person is limited to the planet Earth so don't worry about other places in the galaxy. The arguments would have to be made against those that established the philosophy of inalienable/natural Rights such as John Locke or more recently Ayn Rand. I would suggest starting with reading John Locke.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

 

You'd think that pro-lifers would spend a little bit more effort in trying to prevent/end wars. I just don't understand pro-lifers.

 

You would suggest would you? I have already read Locke, thanks, and disagree with his premise. Locke is not there for me to debate with. YOU Are making the claim here so YOU demonstrate where those rights came from..let me guess ...Jesus gave them to us.

 

Anyone can insist he has an "inherent right to life."

Nature will eventually, inevitably, contradict him.

 

This was actually addressed by the US Supreme Court that reviewed all recorded history in it's Roe v Wade decision and found that a "person" (our Constitution only protects the Rights of Persons/People) has always been defined as a human being after birth occurs. Not even the "anti-abortionists" that argued on behalf of the abortion laws before the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade disputed the fact that historically personhood was only established by birth.

So the issue of "personhood" upon which "Rights" are established only relates to a human being after they are born historically as well as specifically in the United States based upon the Roe v Wade decision.

The Court did, in applying a very progressive interpretation of the US Constitution, allow for limited infringements upon the Rights of the Woman (a person) based upon the "potential personhood" of a fetus at natural viability though. In a purely "conservative" interpretation of the US Constitution any restrictions upon abortion under the law would have been prohibited. That is the irony of the "anti-abortionists" that claim they are opposed to the Roe v Wade decision because it was actually "anti-abortion" in allowing any abortion laws to exist in the United States under the US Constitution.

 

That's true, but where does the Constitution say that the unborn are not persons?

Also, why do you believe that abortion is a woman's right? I don't believe that abortion is a woman's right, simply because of the fact that most abortions (over 95%, according to statistics) are done for convenience reasons.

 

It does, however, disprove your claim that it's impossible to prove a negative.

Obviously you don't understand what you did.

Please, I'm not the one questioning a self-evident truth, you are. That means you're the one with the problem, obviously.

Actually I can, if only because there is so much semantical slop in your original challenge. Positive rights can be created by societies and codified into law, and that has been happening for millennia.

Presumably you are now primed to assert that no unalienable rights exist, and yet blissfully unaware that such an assertion is logically welded to the proposition that might makes right.

On the contrary, since no person has rights unless every person does, all you need do is produce a person with no rights - which of course you cannot, because you can no more separate a person from his or her unalienable rights than you can separate a magnet from its magnetic field.

No, that is a burden you have fabricated so as to remain oblivious to the real problem with your position.

 

Exactly!

 

That they tried the same thing already when they tried to claim that the Constitution only gave those rights to white humans. And they firmly believed they were right on that one too. The supreme court even agreed with them. Ruling that to grant Dred Scott his freedom would deny his owner of his property rights. And so it couldn't be done.

Sick stuff, isn't it? These people really don't change at all.

 

OUR CONSTITUTION READS "LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, IF YOU DON'T WANT LIFE GET RID OF OUR CONSTITUTION; WE SHOULD NOT, BUT IF YOU DON'T WANT LIFE.

ALSO PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MAKING A BABY, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LIFE THEY CREATE!!

I'M JUST SAYING

 

Ahhh that would be the Declaration of Independence.

 

It (the DOI) actually reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It just provides that men are endowed with the rights. Not women, children, or unborn fetuses, much less single celled fertilized eggs.

 

you just love playing the silly game of word semantics don't you

Man
n.noun

1.An adult male human.


2.A human regardless of sex or age; a person.


3.A human or an adult male human belonging to a specific occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination.

a milkman; a congressman; a freeman.


4.The human race; mankind.

5.A member of the genus Homo, family Hominidae, order Primates, class Mammalia, characterized by erect posture and an opposable thumb, especially a member of the only extant species, Homo sapiens, distinguished by a highly developed brain, the capacity for abstract reasoning, and the ability to communicate by means of organized speech and record information in a variety of symbolic systems

 

So all along those voting laws limiting the votes to men really included women too? Who knew? We could have skipped having the 19th amendment.

 

the laws said Male before sufferage

 

Depends who is entitled to rights. Beings, such as fetuses and early infants, the severely disabled etc, who do not care or want for rights, let alone comprehend anything the allow, let alone signify, do not need them.

 

Yes, it is a right, but it is also a social ideal. However, that ideal is collectively natural law, or all humans carry the instinct respecting human life above other forms.

However, that ideal evolves when humans respect their responsibility to themselves and all life when they respect the symbiotics of nature which maintains a healthy environment for humans. We fit into the natural cycles to survive and evolve when we do this.

The very best step humans can take is to fully support the intentions of the American constitution because it is based foremost in that same natural law when scientific logic and correct philosophical perspective is used. Therefore our lawful and peaceful revolution is the first step to being a responsible human.

 

Rights dont exist. Just pointing that out. Its something we created. The "right to life" is nothing that we can guarantee at this point in time, and so it is not a right. Unless its something we can guarantee for sure, as in there is no denying its validity, it is not a right, it is a belief. You believe that people should have the right to live, but you cannot guarantee that that person will live.

 

Ignoring the point of contention of whether or not rights exist, nobody defines "right" to mean something that can be guaranteed. That's why terms like "violation of a right" or "infringement of a right" are heard so often. You are using a different definition than nearly everyone else.

 

Because those definitions are flawed, wouldn't you agree? If something cannot be guaranteed, then it really isn't a right, but just something we all think we should have. Like, if I said that I believed it was a right for everyone to own Ferraris, the entire world may agree with me, but we cannot guarantee that everyone will get Ferraris, and so it is not a right. However, if I said that, in the US, we have the right to plead the 5th amendment, this is, indeed, a valid right because it is something guaranteed to the people. The subject of "right to life" is not, however, a right because it cannot be guaranteed. Other rights such as the right of free speech and even the 5th amendment are also, indeed, human constructs and dont actually exist. You can make the claim that they are God-given rights, but then you raise even more questions about separation of church and state, atheism and rights compatibility, and basically a can of worms best left closed.

 

We're still at the same point. You are creating your own definition of the term "right" and then using that fabricated definition to argue that rights don't exist.

I could define "dog" as a four-legged flying hoofed animal and then make the argument that dogs don't exist but what would be the point?

 

if a fertility doctor implanted a Hitler clone into 1000 women, would that 30 day old fetus have a right to life? would the women have the right to abort such a thing?

 

A right to life can only be granted by beings who value it. For instance, a hungry bear couldn't care less about your right to life they only care about THEIR right to eat....YOU. So, the right to life is a social construct.

 

I disagree. The bear should have a right to life because it wants to be alive, whereas a fetus should not because it has insufficient sentience and for that reason doesnt care. Whether the bear respects or comprehends rights, including those of others, is really beside the point since children and disabled are exactly the same.