Why have so many american problem with abortion of small americans...but no Problem

[WatersMoon110]

Technically they give up their right when they commit a grave offense.

Why? Why does their inalienable human "right to life" just *poof* out of existence when a jury finds them guilty (because, after all, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty)? When does this right *poof* into existence? Why are you the only one who gets to say when this right exists and when it doesn't?

 

[WatersMoon110]

[Rights] are, at least, part of the experience of man regarding law and legal systems.

But abortion is legal. The legal system has, for the most part, already spoken about this matter. Some things are still being discussed, like when society/the legal system feels comfortable with a viability "cut off date" or, like I spoke of earlier, if tax payer dollars can go to fund abortions (the answer is: always for life-saving abortion for low-income women, and often for abortion of pregnancy concieved through rape for low-income women).

[Rights] exist throughout religious traditions. Many people believe they are given by God, and not from the government.

Fair enough. I don't remember any sort of "Bill of Rights" in the Bible, but maybe I missed something, or maybe you mean that some things are interred from the Bible, or maybe you are talking about others religions?

If you'd like to have a discussion about abortion as a religious issue though, I think we might need to start another thread (since this one, to me, seems to be focusing more on the legal aspect of it).

I disagree with the people who believe that they are given by God. I remain confused about what rights possibly could consist of, other than social conventions and legal privileges.

I am also confused. I guess that I feel that rights are legal privileges. As Fated said, one's "right to life" can be removed through jury trial.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

with abortion of adult americans? Thats something i don´t understand.
Isn´t that bigot to demonstrate against abortion and at the same time to support death penalty?

Infants are innocent and have yet to commit any sins or atrocities (if any at all) against society. Or even to contribute it, to use the opposite side of the spectrum.

But those on death row have made a conscious choice to break the law. i have no pity for murderers being put on death row. Justice should be served, despite how one feels about it.

It's not bigoted to support the death penalty and be against abortion. Both support innocent life.

 

[cantata]

Infants are innocent and have yet to commit any sins or atrocities (if any at all) against society. Or even to contribute it, to use the opposite side of the spectrum.

But those on death row have made a conscious choice to break the law. i have no pity for murderers being put on death row. Justice should be served, despite how one feels about it.

It's not bigoted to support the death penalty and be against abortion. Both support innocent life.

Ah, that mysterious concept of "conscious choice", that apparently justifies the use of torture and also manages to expunge those rights that people insist are inherent and unalienable in bundles of cells of the right species, but which magically disappear when someone commits certain sorts of crimes.

 

[fated]

Ah, that mysterious concept of "conscious choice", that apparently justifies the use of torture and also manages to expunge those rights that people insist are inherent and unalienable in bundles of cells of the right species, but which magically disappear when someone commits certain sorts of crimes.

They don't magically disappear, the people or persons charged with protecting the community have an obligation to excercise self defense for society. The criminal gave up his rights when committing an act heinous enough to make society's obligation to protect itself sufficiently grave.

 

[fated]

But abortion is legal. The legal system has, for the most part, already spoken about this matter. Some things are still being discussed, like when society/the legal system feels comfortable with a viability "cut off date" or, like I spoke of earlier, if tax payer dollars can go to fund abortions (the answer is: always for life-saving abortion for low-income women, and often for abortion of pregnancy concieved through rape for low-income women).
Fair enough. I don't remember any sort of "Bill of Rights" in the Bible, but maybe I missed something, or maybe you mean that some things are interred from the Bible, or maybe you are talking about others religions?

If you'd like to have a discussion about abortion as a religious issue though, I think we might need to start another thread (since this one, to me, seems to be focusing more on the legal aspect of it).
I am also confused. I guess that I feel that rights are legal privileges. As Fated said, one's "right to life" can be removed through jury trial.

If rights are subject to the whim of the majority, our system devolves into a situation cyclical oppression of minorities; Of destruction of the past majority. Thus, it makes sense, then, to assume that certain rights must exist outside of the government jurisdiction. The obvious first one is the right to life. Settling a lawsuit against the right to life, especially in the case of one who has done nothing wrong, is just such an imprudent decision.

And I don't know if you are fairly quoting me. One's right to life is is waived by an individual committing a grave offense to society, for which the society can then determine how to defend itself.

Simply existing, as the rest of us have, in a mother's womb, clearly brings no guilt demanding death, otherwise we would all be guilty of such a grave offense.

 

[jcook922]

They don't magically disappear, the people or persons charged with protecting the community have an obligation to excercise self defense for society. The criminal gave up his rights when committing an act heinous enough to make society's obligation to protect itself sufficiently grave.

I agree with you there, sometimes we just need to trim the fat.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Why people compare these two so often, I'm not sure. You have to realize some people out there do not consider abortion in the first trimester murder, while others do.

 

[cantata]

They don't magically disappear, the people or persons charged with protecting the community have an obligation to excercise self defense for society. The criminal gave up his rights when committing an act heinous enough to make society's obligation to protect itself sufficiently grave.

They must, then, be solely civil rights.

If they were inherent, they wouldn't magically poof out of existence when someone did a bad thing.

 

[fated]

They must, then, be solely civil rights.

If they were inherent, they wouldn't magically poof out of existence when someone did a bad thing.

They are given up by a willed act of the offender.

 

[cantata]

They are given up by a willed act of the offender.

That's just fine if they're civil privileges or social conventions.

But inherent rights couldn't get poofed away by misbehaviour.

I don't really know why I'm having this argument anyway, because I don't really know what to make of the concept of free will in the first place.

 

[Belk]

They are given up by a willed act of the offender.

So life is not a right? At least I assume you are going to be consistent and go with the same definition of rights you are using in the other thread as something that is not given by authority of the state.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

That's just fine if they're civil privileges or social conventions.

But inherent rights couldn't get poofed away by misbehaviour.

I don't really know why I'm having this argument anyway, because I don't really know what to make of the concept of free will in the first place.

I'd say you're contradicting yourself actually.
Inherent rights... what happens when one uses an inherent right to violate the inherent rights of others?
I don't know where I'm going with this, but whatever.

 

[cantata]

I'd say you're contradicting yourself actually.
Inherent rights... what happens when one uses an inherent right to violate the inherent rights of others?
I don't know where I'm going with this, but whatever.

I too find the notion of inherent rights as good as nonsensical. I'm glad you agree.

 

[Fin12]

I think some pro death people here would benefit from watching "one flew over the cuCkoo's nest".

You'd be surprised how many murderers and sadists are actually or would be nice guys if it wasn't for external factors beyond their control.

Many of them just need help. To many are too scared to do so.
A Buddhist parable I found might explain what I'm getting at. It's called the old man and the scorpian.

An old man was sitting beside a river, against a tree. He thinking to himself in his spare time, thinking of his friends who he was going to meet with soon, they'd all be drinking wine and playing cards long into the evening. The day was looking to turn out great.

While sitting in thought the man noticed a little scorpian in the river, drowning and floating downstream towards him. The man stretched out his hand and was stung. He withdrew his hand then moved further down the river to another point he reached out to help the little scorpian and the scorpian stung him again, this time the man recoiled his hand in pain his face contorted and red.

He reached one final time and though the pain tremendous and his hand swelling; lifted the scorpian to the safety of the embankment.

At that moment a man passed by and laughed at him "You foolish old man, you must be an idiot to lift that evil, ugly, sneaky, little creature out of the river."

The old man responded "The scorpians nature to sting, does not change my nature to save"

--------------

Maybe this is of some help to someone here?

 

[fated]

So life is not a right? At least I assume you are going to be consistent and go with the same definition of rights you are using in the other thread as something that is not given by authority of the state.

Life is a right, but a society must have justice and protect itself, so, at some point the right to life is given up as a matter of reason.

 

[fated]

That's just fine if they're civil privileges or social conventions.

But inherent rights couldn't get poofed away by misbehaviour.

I don't really know why I'm having this argument anyway, because I don't really know what to make of the concept of free will in the first place.

Why does free will matter?

 

[fated]

I think some pro death people here would benefit from watching "one flew over the cuCkoo's nest".

You'd be surprised how many murderers and sadists are actually or would be nice guys if it wasn't for external factors beyond their control.

Many of them just need help. To many are too scared to do so.
A Buddhist parable I found might explain what I'm getting at. It's called the old man and the scorpian.

An old man was sitting beside a river, against a tree. He thinking to himself in his spare time, thinking of his friends who he was going to meet with soon, they'd all be drinking wine and playing cards long into the evening. The day was looking to turn out great.

While sitting in thought the man noticed a little scorpian in the river, drowning and floating downstream towards him. The man stretched out his hand and was stung. He withdrew his hand then moved further down the river to another point he reached out to help the little scorpian and the scorpian stung him again, this time the man recoiled his hand in pain his face contorted and red.

He reached one final time and though the pain tremendous and his hand swelling; lifted the scorpian to the safety of the embankment.

At that moment a man passed by and laughed at him "You foolish old man, you must be an idiot to lift that evil, ugly, sneaky, little creature out of the river."

The old man responded "The scorpians nature to sting, does not change my nature to save"

--------------

Maybe this is of some help to someone here?

The death penalty can certainly be used in cases were necessary, but when a society can fairly easily bare the burden of protecting itself from the wrong doer without recourse to the death penalty, it should be avoided.

 

[DarkCoffeeJazz]

I too find the notion of inherent rights as good as nonsensical. I'm glad you agree.

I believe the notion that we have certain rights, but find it idiotic to assume it's impossible to give up such rights when we infringe upon the rights of another. Socially or inherently. I think you give up your right to live when you murder others.
I believe in justice, after all. Not to be confused with vengeance.

 

[Fin12]

I believe the notion that we have certain rights, but find it idiotic to assume it's impossible to give up such rights when we infringe upon the rights of another. Socially or inherently. I think you give up your right to live when you murder others.
I believe in justice, after all. Not to be confused with vengeance.

What's the difference when vengance is just your sub-concious encouraging you to remove a potential threat from society?

Or does justice have a different definition?