Read my full response as this has already been covered, natural rights cannot exist, all rights are based on moral and ethical judgements, nature does not have any morals or ethics, what rights does nature bestow onto humans please that have not been interpretated as such by other humans? your life means no more than the earthworm to nature, it makes no allowances for you being a sentient being . .none what so ever, nature is just as likely to kill you as it is to kill the earthworm. A right is different from a law of nature because a right is a protected option not a diktat. A right to life does not mean that one will live, it means that ones life is protected. However, a law of nature is only a law of nature because it is a diktat and is always true. Hence, E cannot have a right to equal mc2 since it always does. The point you are missing is that these so called Natural rights are rights determined to be Natural by man and not by Nature, by definition anything that is declared by man cannot be Natural. Then you have to prove that God exists or at least did exist and IF He did prove that he bestowed a set of rights onto the human race. Consequently, one must attempt to prove the existence of a Supreme Being because unless He exists or at least has existed, then there is not the slightest possibility of His conferring rights. In the history of philosophy, there have been numerous attempts to prove His existence, usually based on one of three arguments. The first is the argument from design which was stated, and then comprehensively rebutted by Hume in his Dialogues on Natural Religion. The second is the cosmological or causal argument propounded by Aristotle, Maimonides, and Aquinas in Summa Theologica, which asserts the idea of God as the First Cause. Strong criticisms of this argument were levelled by Hume in the Dialogues on Natural Religion and Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason. The third famous argument was the ontological argument offered by Anselm, by Spinoza in Ethics, and by Descartes in Meditations with refutation coming from Gaunilo, Kant, and, ironically, Aquinas. The fact remains that very strong, and many would say conclusive, rebuttals have been made of these arguments. Perhaps this is because a Supreme Being does not exist or perhaps it is because comprehension of His nature is beyond the capabilities of human minds. Either way, it seems likely that one cannot prove the existence of a Supreme Being and hence one cannot prove the foundation of divinely ordained Natural Rights. There are further objections why one cannot accept that Natural Rights have been conferred by a Supreme Being. The most important is the fact that, even supposing one can know for certain of the existence of a Supreme Being, that does not imply that He will have instituted a system of rights. It is the Judaeo-Christian tradition that asserts that God has set down irrefutable commandments and conferred irrefutable rights. The essence, however, of Judaism and Christianity is that one is given free will so that one can choose to obey or disobey Gods laws, based on the strength of ones faith. If God conclusively revealed his existence, then everyone would obey His laws because they knew God existed rather than believed He did. Hence, it is likely that if a Supreme Being exists approximating to the Judaeo-Christian model, then he will have ensured that His existence cannot be proven by rational arguments so as to preserve the necessity of people making leaps of faith. Therefore, one reaches the conclusion that the Supreme Being conventionally associated with conferring Natural Rights that is, the Judaeo-Christian God is, if He exists, likely to have arranged it so that one can never be sure He, his authority, or His Natural Rights actually exist. Ergo while you and others may believe in God given Natural rights, you cannot prove it .. and any writings, including the DOI that specifies God given rights is in fact the determination of humans based on their own beliefs, therefore, they cannot be Natural rights.
We Americans enjoy Natural rights because the founding documents of our nation are built upon the philosophical beliefs of the founders, the Enlightenment and Natural laws. Proof of God is not needed to prove that this fact is true. If you want to argue that God does not exist, I don't see a relationship with this argument of this thread.
No, but proof of a god is needed to show proof of a god. Claiming "god given rights" brings your god into the argument........leave it out and others will...
But I am not trying to prove the existence of God, only the fact that our form of government is based on the philosophy of Natural laws and God given rights. I don't need to prove the existence of God to make that fact evident. I don' understand why you are confused on that point.
LOL! How can you prove "god given rights" if you can't prove there is such a thing as "god"..... - - - Updated - - - The fetus has no rights.
Let me explain once again is a simpler manner, I am explaining that our form of government is based on the philosophy of Natural laws and God given rights. I am telling you it is a fact that our form of government is based on that philosophy. I don't need to prove the existence of God to make that fact clear.
No I'm not. I did not invent the philosophy. It is rights based on a philosophy, not on a religion. I still don't understand why you are failing to comprehend this.
Maybe if you explained your reason for thinking that god has nothing to do with religion. Or why a make believe character has anything to do with abortion.....
I know you think you are cleaver or witty by flamebaiting and making incendiary comments about God and religion. Maybe you do understand the issue perfectly and are only pretending to not understand. Either way, game over as I have proved my point multiple times over and you are out of sly retorts.
I don't need to, the question you asked was extraneous. What I instead showed was that the OP's comparison was in fact valid, and that legally a fetus is a woman's property, and (in parlance) her property until a certain point.
How did you work that out? If the woman has rights, then the wall must have rights? You aren't applying logic
Re-read the highlighted part and then try to tell me that these so called "Natural rights" are NOT by the determination of human beings ergo they can not be Natural rights. Even Philosophical beliefs come from the mind of the people who first thought them, they are the invention of human beings ergo they cannot be Natural rights. Natura means with no influence from human kind. Natural - Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/natural there are simply no rights that "exist in or" are "derived from nature", rights are based on moral and/or ethical judgements, and nature is neither moral or ethical. Natural rights by definition are "those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).", and yet even in the USA one of these so called natural rights is violated every time a person is executed, or killed in self-defence .. the so called natural right to life. You are trying to assert that a document written by man, based on other men's ideas is Natural law, when it simply cannot be.
The same place all other rights come from, specifically for US people from the DOI and the Constitution, both of which are man made, and as such are subject to change or even removal and are not Natural rights .. most peoples rights have evolved as societies have evolved.
Great, no problem with that .. now you have to explain how a fetus has the right to use another person body without their consent in order to sustain their own life, show me ANY right that allows that for ANY other person without consent please?
Ergo you cannot answer it. No the OP's comparison is not valid, the unborn are not and never have been deemed as property and a fetus has never been deemed a woman's property at any point of gestation.
You are mistaken. You question was extraneous, ergo there was no need to answer it. It is legally treated as her property, just as much as my pinkey is treated as my property. If you break my pinkey, I can sue you for damages. If I break my pinkey, even willfully, it's my own loss. Replace "pinkey" with "TV", and the same still applies. Then replace it with "fetus", and the same still applies. If I have a fetus inside of me and you destroy it (against my will), then I can sue you for damages and other crimes. If I have it destroyed myself, it's my own loss. A fetus is treated as a woman's property - saying that we don't have a court decision saying that it is is just evading the all too obvious point.
You can't have it both ways. You can't demand proof of God and then say since there is no proof of God then it is a creation of man and therefore there is not such thing as Natural rights. It doesn't change the facts of the argument that our rights are in fact based in God given Natural rights based on the philosophical beliefs and understanding of the Enlightenment Era of that time. Using your logic then once again proof of God's existence is a requirement to prove such a thing as "God given rights". As I've said time and again, it is not necessary to prove the existence of God to prove "God given rights".
That is your opinion nothing more, the question still remains valid. A fetus cannot be seen as property simple because it has the legal right to inheritance in most states eg. According to Ohio Revised Code §2105.14, an unborn child has the same legal rights of inheritance as a born child. In the case of Ebbs v Smith in 1979, a women had said in her will that her estate was to be divided among various classes of relatives "living at the time of my death". The court ruled that this included a baby who was still in the womb at that time. Property cannot inherit ergo the unborn are not property.
