When Do Human Rights Begin?

[Tree of Life]

Parasite? Wow! Talk about charged language. I come to this discussion as someone who is Pro-life but lives with someone Pro- choice and have many friends Pro-choice. So I value honest discussion attempting communication. What I see and hear a lot is point making. When I was a kid we used to call it "scoring". Put someone down, get in a good insult...SCORE! It is juvenile and will not lead to anything good.

This is not a thread about abortion. Let's please stay on topic.

 

[Tree of Life]

All other rights, such as those found in our governing Constitution, are rights given to men by men and those men who give them determine when they will be given and even if they will be taken away.

This is a very strange view. Does this mean that the government has a right to take my property or to kill me for no good reason? What right do men have to give or take away rights?

 

[Kenny'sID]

When does a human being get their rights? How you answer this will likely depend upon where you believe human rights come from. Here are some options that I can imagine:

• When they are conceived.
• When they are born.
• When they become a citizen.

Maybe your answer is something in between these points or something else altogether. When do human rights begin for an individual?

Can't do much with them till after we're born so, I'll go with that.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

This is not a thread about abortion. Let's please stay on topic.

Hah! That's rich. Abortion and maternal - fetal vital conflict make the question relevant.

 

[Tree of Life]

Can't do much with them till after we're born so, I'll go with that.

Seems a little arbitrary. A newborn baby can do just as much with his or her rights as an 8-month old gestating fetus. Does a child not have rights until they can do something with them? Do newborn infants not have a right to be protected?

 

[Strathos]

That's not what I asked. Is it murder to remove a human parasite you didn't consent to host?

If you believe that it's not murder, then shouldn't you support the government rounding up and executing the homeless, unemployed, and disabled? After all, you could consider them 'parasites' on society that we didn't consent to host.

 

[Tree of Life]

Hah! That's rich. Abortion and maternal - fetal vital conflict make the question relevant.

Introducing a specific application of the principle will cloud peoples abilities to talk about the principle itself.

 

[miamited]

I think God is capable of recognizing the uniqueness of every individual and can judge taking into account all the many factors.

Hi akita,

I don't mean to seem dense, but could you explain what God's ability to see our uniqueness and take into account all the many factors means to say in relation to my post?

You also responded to another's post:

Parasite? Wow! Talk about charged language.

Be careful in what you say. Understand that the person you are sharing with is a humanist. They are going to see and understand the things of this world differently than you, a catholic, are. A humanist is going to believe that mankind is all there is. So, that one man lives and another doesn't isn't of any eternal value. It's just the way that things work out. To a humanist, murder isn't necessarily a bad thing, other than the laws of men say that it is. There is no eternal consequence to killing someone, whether it be a full grown adult or a fetus in the womb. For a humanist, all that is needed is for the laws of men to determine that this 'growth' in the woman's womb is not a person, and therefore, destroying it is no different than putting a pet to sleep after they've served their usefulness.

It's a different worldview, so it is not understood as 'charged' language, but merely the truth as they understand it. Technically it is not a parasite. A parasite, by definition, lives off of a host of a different species or kind. One has to wonder whether the person you're responding to learned that babies were 'parasites' from their mother?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

This is a very strange view. Does this mean that the government has a right to take my property or to kill me for no good reason? What right do men have to give or take away rights?

Hi TOL,

Whatever right they give themselves to do that. The Scriptures do not give us any rights except the right to be called a child of God if we have been born again.

When Paul appealed to the Roman government for a hearing before being put to death, the right of such an appeal was not given to him by God. That right was given to him by the Roman government. Yes, the Roman government could have also made a new law to take away that right if they desired to do so. Just as our government can take away any right that they have given us, if they choose to do so.

This may actually be tested one day in our courts concerning the ownership of firearms. The U.S. government has given its people, through the constitution, the right to bear arms. However, at the rate firearms deaths are growing in this country, we may well have a battle in the courts to strip that right away. If the government decides to do that, then they have the authority to do that because they are the government. God didn't give mankind any right to bear arms. As far as I can tell, God didn't give any right to mankind to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some of us may enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but God didn't give us any right to such pursuits.

Yes, if the government makes a law, such as eminent domain, the government has the right to take your property. Of course our law of eminent domain does require that the property receive a fair value in return for its taking, but there isn't any 'right' that the government has to do that, unless the law, as written by the men who make such laws, afford that right to the people.

While the the U.S. government likely won't kill you for no good reason, yes the U.S. government has killed people for no good reason. We went to war in Vietnam because the French were asking us to help them assert their colonial rule over Vietnam. We killed thousands of people merely so the French could hold onto Vietnam as one of its colonies. Now, as that war drug on we came up with much better reasons to be involved in it, but the truth of the beginning of that war was nothing more than the sustaining of colonialism for France. France convinced us that if we didn't join in the fight that Vietnam was going to go over to communism, but why wouldn't that be the choice of the people living in Vietnam.

In fact, Vietnam is still considered a communist country and look, we all get along pretty fine. There was a time in the government of the United States that communism carried with it this bugaboo that it was evil and its goal was to overtake the world. To date, that doesn't seem to have ever been the effort of communism. It is merely another form of governance, for which Americans think people don't get the kinds of freedoms that we enjoy. While that may well be true, its also true of many other forms of government operating around the globe. Islamic countries don't generally give their citizenry that kind of freedoms that we enjoy. But that there was some goal of communist countries to take over the world doesn't seem to have ever really been a thing. Most of them just wanted their little piece of the pie to be governed under communist ideology and that's fine.

At the present time, there are five countries on the globe that are considered communist nations. Vietnam, China, Laos, Cuba and N. Korea. While these countries all seem to have failed governing systems, they aren't really much of a threat to take over the world. For all the thousands upon thousands of men and women who died in Vietnam, the country was turned over to a communist government after it was all over and still to this day is a communist nation. The world seems to be getting along pretty fine with that. So yes, a government, specifically the U.S. government, can kill people for no good reason.

But the bottom line is that any government has the authority to make whatever laws they deem right and proper. In the U.S., our government is established as a representative government and so such things aren't likely to happen here. But it's worth considering that in the days of Joseph's being second in command over all of Egypt, he used the famine to take all the land ownership from the people. Joseph was supposedly a godly man. So, the question must be asked, does God think that people ought to have some right to hold on to their land in the face of some government conscription of it?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Tree of Life]

@miamited God says "Ye shall not murder". Does this not imply a God-given right to life? God says: "Ye shall not steal". Does this not imply a God-given right to property? Paul teaches that husbands and wives have conjugal rights. Are these not given by God?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I don't mean to seem dense, but could you explain what God's ability to see our uniqueness and take into account all the many factors means to say in relation to my post?

It seemed to me your post implied that because we are all sinners we all are equally guilty and culpable. I don't think all sin is equal and I think circumstances can mitigate culpability. Know what I mean?

 

[Tone]

When does a human being get their rights? How you answer this will likely depend upon where you believe human rights come from. Here are some options that I can imagine:

• When they are conceived.
• When they are born.
• When they become a citizen.

Maybe your answer is something in between these points or something else altogether. When do human rights begin for an individual?

When it is written, "In the beginning God created..." (Genesis 1)

 

[com7fy8]

before conception, because even before conception we need to prepare for the child

 

[Tone]

When it is written, "In the beginning God created..." (Genesis 1)

Since "God created", we have human rights...if anybody/thing/nothing created...no rights.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Seems a little arbitrary. A newborn baby can do just as much with his or her rights as an 8-month old gestating fetus. Does a child not have rights until they can do something with them? Do newborn infants not have a right to be protected?

Rights do them no good unless they can physically use them/see to it they get them, unless they can depend on someone to do it for them. So, it's not rocket science to know they can't physically do that until some point after they're born, meaning the before their born choice isn't viable at all.

Or are you just not being clear, and are saying someone else will see to it they have rights, born or unborn, and even if they cannot physically see to it their rights are given, because the way things are going, I wouldn't much depend on that.

I realize this isn't about abortion, but is that where you're actually headed with it, because it sure seems like it?

 

[VirOptimus]

Ah interesting. So human rights are something that the state gives or could take away?

I think this view creates some problems that I imagine you would not accept. Blacks in the slavery era in the south were viewed as property and the state did not believe that had many, if any, human rights. But if rights are as you say, then the south was correct! They had no rights recognized by law.

Edit: I also might ask - what exactly is the law recognizing? If there's nothing there before the law "recognizes" it, then the law really is creating or imparting rights, not recognizing rights that already exist. Right?

Rights are by definition whats recognized by law.

Rights cannot exist outside law.

Laws are never ”correct”, they just are. Every law and right can be debated on their merit.

 

[St_Worm2]

Rights are by definition whats recognized by law. Rights cannot exist outside law. Laws are never ”correct”, they just are. Every law and right can be debated on their merit.

Hi VirOptimus, I believe that there may be some disagreement about that. For instance:

"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."

~The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (excerpt)
​

--David

 

[VirOptimus]

Hi VirOptimus, I believe that there may be some disagreement about that. For instance:

"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."

~The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (excerpt)
​

--David

I'm know there are but there are no way to use a "right" if it is not recognized by law.

There are quite a few views on "rights" in moral philosophy and legal academia.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hi VirOptimus, I believe that there may be some disagreement about that. For instance:

"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."

~The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (excerpt)
​

--David

Also, as your country uses capital punishment the above "rights" isnt "unalienable" in your country.

 

[quatona]

When does a human being get their rights?

When they are granted them.
Depends on the right, depends on the country.