Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[dilloduck]

They actually didn't. What they said is that the government does not have the power to interfere with the right of a woman to consult with a doctor about health issues.

Funny how they changed their tune on that, isn't it?

They knew full well what the implications of their decision was.

Funny how I never said they didn't, what I said is that the Supreme Court now thinks the government can interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.

Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did you read what you just wrote? I bolded it for you so you cant miss it this time. The fact that they said its a right makes it so. The Supreme Court is a branch of the government. The judicial branch to be exact.

Did you read what you just said? You are the one that claimed there is no right to life, not me, now you are arguing that the simple fact that the Supreme Court said it exists, which I pointed out, proves you right.

Want to explain that to all the people that don't live in a world where aliens built the pyramids?

I think you were the only one confused. You asked for an example of when the government granted a right to life. I said there is no right to life. Hence the government has to grant it. Maybe I should have helped you out by saying the right is not pre-existing. I thought you were smart enough to follow the flow of conversation.

I know you are incapable of admitting you are wrong.

If the government grants the right to life, prove it. It should be easy, whow me that, outside the government, everytthing dies. How did people exist before the government? How do animals exist without the government protecting their right to life? Why, if government protects people's right to life, do people die without the government's permission?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So life is clearly is not an inalienable right.

I suggest you learn what the words you are using mean, it might help you understand why you are wrong.

Inalianable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.

Alienated: to convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law.

Actually the Constitution has it wrong. It claims that certain rights are unalienable when in reality they are clearly not.

Actually, you have it wrong, the Constitution makes no such claim.

But, on the off chance that you can actually prove that rights are alienable, show me a single example of the government giving someone who does not already have the right to life that right. I can actually show this occurring with civil rights,which clearly come from the government. When a legal resident is granted citizenship they are also granted the right to vote. Why can't you show me the government actually granting anyone the right to life?

 

[Asclepias]

Like I said, show me one example of any government giving anyone the right to life. If you can't find one, feel free to show me an example of everyone spontaneously dying because the government no longer exists.

Look at the laws against murder or manslaughter. They transgressed on another persons given right to life. Now your turn. Show me an example of a natural right to life.

Not even close.

So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?

 

[dilloduck]

Look at the laws against murder or manslaughter. They transgressed on another persons given right to life. Now your turn. Show me an example of a natural right to life.

Not even close.

So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?

So far I haven't seen an example of any natural right whatsoever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks for making my point for me again but you must not have read a dictionary. Look up the word grant and tell me where it says you have to write down a grant.

Dillo just told me that my post proves you wrong. He did that because he thought, for some obscure reason, that I thought that the 1st Amendment grants rights.

But, since you insist on making a fool of yourself, show me a single example of a government grant that is not written, and explain how that will work.

You are asking for something that has no bearing. Look up the word grant and provide the part where a grant has to be written. After you do that we can proceed on whatever pointless point you are trying to make.

Grants from the government are different than regular grants. Even when it isn't the government actually doing the granting the government usually requires the grant to be in writing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They knew full well what the implications of their decision was.

Funny how I never said they didn't, what I said is that the Supreme Court now thinks the government can interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.

Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.

It has? By whom? When? Was it announced in a peer reviewed journal I don't subscribe to, or did it happen only inside your head?

 

[Asclepias]

Did you read what you just said? You are the one that claimed there is no right to life, not me, now you are arguing that the simple fact that the Supreme Court said it exists, which I pointed out, proves you right.

Want to explain that to all the people that don't live in a world where aliens built the pyramids?

I think you were the only one confused. You asked for an example of when the government granted a right to life. I said there is no right to life. Hence the government has to grant it. Maybe I should have helped you out by saying the right is not pre-existing. I thought you were smart enough to follow the flow of conversation.

I know you are incapable of admitting you are wrong.

If the government grants the right to life, prove it. It should be easy, whow me that, outside the government, everytthing dies. How did people exist before the government? How do animals exist without the government protecting their right to life? Why, if government protects people's right to life, do people die without the government's permission?

I just did. They prosecute people for murder. They say people have the right to life.....in the declaration of independence. By doing so they grant the right to life. Is this hard for you to understand? What does your point about life existing outside of government have to do with rights? You are confusing yourself with ideas that have nothing to do with rights

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Look at the laws against murder or manslaughter. They transgressed on another persons given right to life. Now your turn. Show me an example of a natural right to life.

Not even close.

So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?

If you want my examples feel free to go back through the thread and look them up, I see no need to repeat myself simply because you don't want to actually read the entire thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not even close.

So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?

So far I haven't seen an example of any natural right whatsoever.

Is that because you keep your eyes closed all the time?

 

[Asclepias]

Dillo just told me that my post proves you wrong. He did that because he thought, for some obscure reason, that I thought that the 1st Amendment grants rights.

But, since you insist on making a fool of yourself, show me a single example of a government grant that is not written, and explain how that will work.

You are asking for something that has no bearing. Look up the word grant and provide the part where a grant has to be written. After you do that we can proceed on whatever pointless point you are trying to make.

Grants form the government are different than regular grants. Even when it isn't the government actually doing the granting the government usually requires the grant to be in writing.

Who said this and why did you believe them when they say its different? Usually is not good enough. My point is that a grant does not have to be written which you just admitted by using the word "usually".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They knew full well what the implications of their decision was.

Funny how I never said they didn't, what I said is that the Supreme Court now thinks the government can interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.

Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.

I see you didn't read the post where I provided the definition of unalienable. When you can show me how the government takes that right from the fetus and gives it to someone else, you will have made your point. Until then, all you are doing is arguing that you are right because you are right.

 

[Asclepias]

Not even close.

So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?

If you want my examples feel free to go back through the thread and look them up, I see no need to repeat myself simply because you don't want to actually read the entire thread.

Then dont ask me to repeat myself since you cant provide an example. The reason you cant provide one is because you have no proof one exists.

 

[Asclepias]

So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?

So far I haven't seen an example of any natural right whatsoever.

Is that because you keep your eyes closed all the time?

Its more likely that you have failed to provide one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you mean you cant provide an example of a natural right to life?

If you want my examples feel free to go back through the thread and look them up, I see no need to repeat myself simply because you don't want to actually read the entire thread.

Then dont ask me to repeat myself since you cant provide an example. The reason you cant provide one is because you have no proof one exists.

I haven't asked you to repeat yourself, I have demanded that you prove your point. You seem to think, just like everyone else who insists that natural rights do not exist, that all you have to do is assert that you are right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So far I haven't seen an example of any natural right whatsoever.

Is that because you keep your eyes closed all the time?

Its more likely that you have failed to provide one.

Is that because you read all the posts in this thread, or is it because you think aliens built the pyramids?

 

[dilloduck]

Funny how I never said they didn't, what I said is that the Supreme Court now thinks the government can interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.

Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.

I see you didn't read the post where I provided the definition of unalienable. When you can show me how the government takes that right from the fetus and gives it to someone else, you will have made your point. Until then, all you are doing is arguing that you are right because you are right.

how about some honesty----transferring is not the only definition of unalienable but you knew that.

 

[Asclepias]

If you want my examples feel free to go back through the thread and look them up, I see no need to repeat myself simply because you don't want to actually read the entire thread.

Then dont ask me to repeat myself since you cant provide an example. The reason you cant provide one is because you have no proof one exists.

I haven't asked you to repeat yourself, I have demanded that you prove your point. You seem to think, just like everyone else who insists that natural rights do not exist, that all you have to do is assert that you are right.

Yeah you did. Go look at the record. Natural rights don't exist. I'm demanding you provide an example of a natural right. You cant prove me wrong until you can provide one. I will shoot your example down in a heartbeat and you know this. Thats why you cant provide one. Your attempt at stalling does not fool me. Show me the proof a natural right exists.

 

[Asclepias]

Is that because you keep your eyes closed all the time?

Its more likely that you have failed to provide one.

Is that because you read all the posts in this thread, or is it because you think aliens built the pyramids?

I know when I'm in your head Quantum. You start trying claim things you cant prove and attribute them to me. So far you are the only one that believes aliens built the pyramids. Stop stalling and give me an example of a natural or unalienable right.

 

[Asclepias]

Focus now-----The right to life that is supposedly unalienable has been proven not to be so. Our own government has messed with it.

I see you didn't read the post where I provided the definition of unalienable. When you can show me how the government takes that right from the fetus and gives it to someone else, you will have made your point. Until then, all you are doing is arguing that you are right because you are right.

how about some honesty----transferring is not the only definition of unalienable but you knew that.

Quantum always does this when he starts writing faster than he can think. Its a stall tactic.