Do the unborn have rights?

[muichimotsu]

According to the law. You're just not seeing this.

The law is not absolute when it can be amended, but it should be amended for good reasons, which is why we have the stringent standards on it. What's the point here in invoking the law except to say, "The law is imperfect, thus we can't rely on it to make decisions" or some variant thereof?

 

[muichimotsu]

They should have more rights and protections because they have no way of standing up for themselves. The most vulnerable are the ones who need the most protections.

No, that's not how rights work, you don't get more because you don't have a capacity like that, children don't have more rights, they have more protections. But that still doesn't apply to the unborn, because they're not qualitatively the same as a child, even a baby deserves more protection because it is actualized and independent versus a fetus that is demonstrably dependent on its mother until technology advances otherwise.

You're conflating rights and protections without understanding how they are distinct in legal execution: at most you're trying to add more negative liberty onto the unborn, that we shouldn't violate them because you've anthropomorphized and added legal personhood onto something that isn't remotely comparable to a baby that is born and can be raised by anyone versus a zygote/embryo/fetus that cannot exist apart from its mother's womb

 

[muichimotsu]

When people start using Hitler's logic to defend their own viewpoint, it becomes necessary to point it out to them, lest they continue down that path.

The point is that if all you have in terms of a response is to compare someone to Hitler, that's irrelevant to why what the person is saying is wrong in itself, it's guilt by association

 

[muichimotsu]

A "right" is a privilege bestowed by the powerful. It does not exist in nature. If you fall overboard off a cruise vessel and claim a right to life, the waves and the sharks will ignore it. A virus doesn't care about your claimed right to life.

Rights are a legal construct that exist as long as the people with power decree that it exists. If you want a "right," you need to get the people in power to agree with you.

Non humans don't care about rights because, like with laws, they don't understand them. An elephant goring someone is not subject to a trial, they're likely euthanized or such because they're considered too dangerous, rather than because they violated a person's right to security.

You might as well talk about how the weather doesn't care about property rights: no one in their right mind claims that

It's not purely about power, that's a needlessly cynical viewpoint in regards to a system that is meant to benefit everyone, not just those who have the best means of advancing. Or are you advocating for anarchy then?

 

[muichimotsu]

I am going with how Jesus was conceived in Mary. He was Jesus, in there, as soon as the Holy Spirit conceived Him there.

And I note how if a couple love the child they want to have, they can feel they have a child, as soon as they know they have conceived.

Except that gets into more complications if we're going with the idea of JEsus preexisting before then, and thus cannot be in 2 places at once unless you stretch teh idea

Conception and recognizing the conception are 2 different points, but I don't disagree that if a couple intends to be parents, they can recognize the unborn as a child, that's context sensitive, which you don't seem to understand doesn't fully apply for legal considerations of personhood

 

[muichimotsu]

I would say we must observe, but subject to when and how God blesses people to have lives.

And I would say if God wants us to have a certain privilege, then in some way this is a right, since it is what God desires and it is . . . right. It is a right for God, if this is what God wants.

That was... a complete non-answer, you just deflected any real responsibility back onto God instead of even making a tentative point

 

[muichimotsu]

And to show how people today are beginning to subscribe to the same beliefs as Hitler, but don't know it until they are shown the quotes. Sometimes we need reminders from history so we don't repeat the same mistakes.

But we also need to be careful to not just believe something because it seems convincing

 

[muichimotsu]

In what way can it be demonstrated why it is wrong to trivialize one life over another and view them as fit for extermination? If showing examples of what happens when this is done at the highest levels of government isn't good enough, then what is?

No one in this thread or in terms of advocating for abortion rights is regarding the unborn as pests to be exterminated, that rhetoric is all in your head

 

[RDKirk]

Non humans don't care about rights because, like with laws, they don't understand them. An elephant goring someone is not subject to a trial, they're likely euthanized or such because they're considered too dangerous, rather than because they violated a person's right to security.

You might as well talk about how the weather doesn't care about property rights: no one in their right mind claims that

It's not purely about power, that's a needlessly cynical viewpoint in regards to a system that is meant to benefit everyone, not just those who have the best means of advancing. Or are you advocating for anarchy then?

"Rights" only exist in human culture. Culture is controlled by power. Rights only exist as long as the powerful endorse and enforce them.

It's like the painting "Whistler's Mother." The painting was not simply floating around in the ether of the universe to be discovered--it did not exist until James Whistler painted it.

It's the same with "rights." They are not artifacts of nature. They exist only as long as powerful human beings endorse and enforce them.

 

[SkyWriting]

The law is not absolute when it can be amended, but it should be amended for good reasons, which is why we have the stringent standards on it. What's the point here in invoking the law except to say, "The law is imperfect, thus we can't rely on it to make decisions" or some variant thereof?

Local law is from Our Father in Heaven.
Romans 13

 

[SkyWriting]

And to show how people today are beginning to subscribe to the same beliefs as Hitler, but don't know it until they are shown the quotes. Sometimes we need reminders from history so we don't repeat the same mistakes.

Socialisting is a solution we all enjoy.
All government programs for example.

 

[NxNW]

I am going with how Jesus was conceived in Mary. He was Jesus, in there, as soon as the Holy Spirit conceived Him there.

That argument doesn't hold much water for people who don't believe Jesus ever existed.

And I note how if a couple love the child they want to have, they can feel they have a child, as soon as they know they have conceived.

Feelings aren't much of an argument, either.

 

[Strathos]

You need to first establish that you are talking about human beings. No matter how you define 'human being', I've repeatedly explained how it does not apply to first trimester pregnancies.

That brings up an interesting tangent - is it immoral to argue that only 'human beings' have a right to life?

 

[Aldebaran]

No, that's not how rights work, you don't get more because you don't have a capacity like that, children don't have more rights, they have more protections. But that still doesn't apply to the unborn, because they're not qualitatively the same as a child, even a baby deserves more protection because it is actualized and independent versus a fetus that is demonstrably dependent on its mother until technology advances otherwise.

Those who are dependent deserve more protection. Taking advantage of their dependency and vulnerability for our convenience is hardly justifiable. Or are we enlightened beyond the point of caring for the vulnerable and dependent?

You're conflating rights and protections without understanding how they are distinct in legal execution: at most you're trying to add more negative liberty onto the unborn, that we shouldn't violate them because you've anthropomorphized and added legal personhood onto something that isn't remotely comparable to a baby that is born and can be raised by anyone versus a zygote/embryo/fetus that cannot exist apart from its mother's womb

Negative liberty is defined as freedom from interference by other people. Haven't you been attempting to justify that for the woman?

 

[Aldebaran]

The point is that if all you have in terms of a response is to compare someone to Hitler, that's irrelevant to why what the person is saying is wrong in itself, it's guilt by association

I didn't compare anyone to Hitler. I compared a person's quote to what Hitler said, and showed how they are using the same type of reasoning. Take from it what you will.

 

[muichimotsu]

"Rights" only exist in human culture. Culture is controlled by power. Rights only exist as long as the powerful endorse and enforce them.

It's like the painting "Whistler's Mother." The painting was not simply floating around in the ether of the universe to be discovered--it did not exist until James Whistler painted it.

It's the same with "rights." They are not artifacts of nature. They exist only as long as powerful human beings endorse and enforce them.

Not sure a painting concept is the same as rights, because the latter has demonstrable benefits for society, the former is interesting, but not necessary for society to function. Not sure anyone is arguing rights are innate so much as inherent in terms of a functioning society, axiomatic, but not something that we can observe like gravity and such.

 

[muichimotsu]

Local law is from Our Father in Heaven.
Romans 13

Oh, now there's local law, as opposed to some law that one would argue exists without actually being able to substantiate apart from vague appeals to a book or "common sense"?

 

[muichimotsu]

Those who are dependent deserve more protection. Taking advantage of their dependency and vulnerability for our convenience is hardly justifiable. Or are we enlightened beyond the point of caring for the vulnerable and dependent?

It's not about convenience when we're talking about autonomy in the basic sense versus more emergent autonomy, like being able to do particular things that are dependent on other factors. But a woman being able to govern her own body in terms of reproduction is not the same as her getting a career, etc, you're equivocating.

Vulnerable and dependent necessarily require functionality to be something that has protection rights versus something that is characterized as such, but ignores other realities, like biological viability of an embryo, zygote or fetus before a certain point according to medical science. You're engaging in pathos and ethos rhetoric and ignoring logos because it would undermine your ideological bent to needlessly restrict a woman's freedom because you characterize her as selfish or a "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" or such, whatever terms you use

Negative liberty is defined as freedom from interference by other people. Haven't you been attempting to justify that for the woman?

Perhaps I meant positive liberty, my mistake. You're trying to add on new aspects because of how you want to take away a woman's right to govern her body in a context that's only your "business" because you assume some role to protect entities that your God demonstrably aborts by miscarriages, also called spontaneous abortions medically.

It's hypocritical to argue that God can abort, but humans can't because you put God on a pedestal and say we cannot make such decisions when the decision making process is not as simple as you seem to reduce it to.

 

[muichimotsu]

I didn't compare anyone to Hitler. I compared a person's quote to what Hitler said, and showed how they are using the same type of reasoning. Take from it what you will.

That is comparing someone to Hitler, because you're taking his words and comparing what someone says to that, you can't be this obtuse unless you literally just don't want to admit you made that comparison and try desperately to justify it otherwise.

You're conflating their reasoning to Hitler's, that's the problem in the thinking used for the "argument"

 

[RDKirk]

Not sure a painting concept is the same as rights, because the latter has demonstrable benefits for society, the former is interesting, but not necessary for society to function. Not sure anyone is arguing rights are innate so much as inherent in terms of a functioning society, axiomatic, but not something that we can observe like gravity and such.

"Rights" are not an inalienable entity in any society.

For instance, what "rights" exist for a subject of the king in an absolute monarchy...except those endorsed by the monarch?