"Health is a right"

[peach174]

NO, protects, but does not define. The constitution makes that clear. Basic human rights do not come from governments.

Then how and why do we have the right to vote if the right to vote is not a basic human right, according to you?

The government DEFINED voting as a right and then proceeded to secure that right by law.

voting is a legal right based on our body of federal and state law. Life, liberty, and happiness cannot be legislated, they are basic human rights. They can be taken away, and are in many places today, but they remain inalienable.

I know that's a difficult thought process for liberals since you believe that everything comes from government, but the founders got it right and wrote it down.

The protection of your rights comes from the government,

but only after the government has decided what are or are not your rights.

governments write laws and enforce laws. governments do not establish rights.

I think your problem here is that you don't understand the meaning of the word "rights".

So a woman always had the right to abortion, but it was only protected by law after the government intervened?

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

 

[dblack]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

 

[Redfish]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

not a valid analogy. the unborn is helpless to ensure its life. those of us who are born are on our own to ensure our life.

 

[dblack]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

not a valid analogy. the unborn is helpless to ensure its life. those of us who are born are on our own to ensure our life.

It wasn't an analogy. I was pointing out that both arguments have the same flawed premise. The right to life doesn't mean someone else must keep you alive.

 

[Redfish]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

not a valid analogy. the unborn is helpless to ensure its life. those of us who are born are on our own to ensure our life.

It wasn't an analogy. I was pointing out that both arguments have the same flawed premise. The right to life doesn't mean someone else must keep you alive.

that only applies if you have control of your own life. An unborn child has no control over his or her life.

 

[dblack]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

not a valid analogy. the unborn is helpless to ensure its life. those of us who are born are on our own to ensure our life.

It wasn't an analogy. I was pointing out that both arguments have the same flawed premise. The right to life doesn't mean someone else must keep you alive.

that only applies if you have control of your own life. An unborn child has no control over his or her life.

Agreed. Rights don't apply if there is no agency.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

So you concede that what is or isn't a right, secured by the government, is wholly up to the People to decide.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

not a valid analogy. the unborn is helpless to ensure its life. those of us who are born are on our own to ensure our life.

It wasn't an analogy. I was pointing out that both arguments have the same flawed premise. The right to life doesn't mean someone else must keep you alive.

that only applies if you have control of your own life. An unborn child has no control over his or her life.

The unborn do not have rights,

unless of course the government gives them rights.

 

[dblack]

The unborn do not have rights,

unless of course the government gives them rights.

You're giving new meaning to "government teat".

So, care to define 'basic human right'? Equivocating on terms is tedious. Let's talk about ideas.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The unborn do not have rights,

unless of course the government gives them rights.

You're giving new meaning to "government teat".

So, care to define 'basic human right'? Equivocating on terms is tedious. Let's talk about ideas.

All I've noticed is that conservatives INSIST that there are basic, natural, God given, inalienable rights,

but then, by the most astonishing of coincidences,

those same conservatives insist that it's only the rights that conservatives approve of that fall into that category.

Pretty Goddam convenient if you ask me...

 

[dblack]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

So you concede that what is or isn't a right, secured by the government, is wholly up to the People to decide.

Which rights government protects, and which the violate, is definitely up to government. Why did you capitalize "People"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

So you concede that what is or isn't a right, secured by the government, is wholly up to the People to decide.

Which rights government protects, and which the violate, is definitely up to government. Why did you capitalize "People"?

So you do agree that 'rights' to the extent they are actually exercisable, come from the government, not from some supernatural creature.

 

[dblack]

The unborn do not have rights,

unless of course the government gives them rights.

You're giving new meaning to "government teat".

So, care to define 'basic human right'? Equivocating on terms is tedious. Let's talk about ideas.

All I've noticed is that conservatives INSIST that there are basic, natural, God given, inalienable rights,

but then, by the most astonishing of coincidences,

those same conservatives insist that it's only the rights that conservatives approve of that fall into that category.

Pretty Goddam convenient if you ask me...

Ok, so I know you reject the definition of "basic human rights" that is based in inalienable rights. But what do you offer in it's place? How do you define "basic human rights"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

So you concede that what is or isn't a right, secured by the government, is wholly up to the People to decide.

Which rights government protects, and which the violate, is definitely up to government. Why did you capitalize "People"?

Because we have a Government of the People.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The unborn do not have rights,

unless of course the government gives them rights.

You're giving new meaning to "government teat".

So, care to define 'basic human right'? Equivocating on terms is tedious. Let's talk about ideas.

All I've noticed is that conservatives INSIST that there are basic, natural, God given, inalienable rights,

but then, by the most astonishing of coincidences,

those same conservatives insist that it's only the rights that conservatives approve of that fall into that category.

Pretty Goddam convenient if you ask me...

Ok, so I know you reject the definition of "basic human rights" that is based in inalienable rights. But what do you offer in it's place? How do you define "basic human rights"?

I offer the hope that a democratic government of the People can rightly determine what to recognize as a right worthy of protection by the government.

 

[dblack]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

So you concede that what is or isn't a right, secured by the government, is wholly up to the People to decide.

Which rights government protects, and which the violate, is definitely up to government. Why did you capitalize "People"?

So you do agree that 'rights' to the extent they are actually exercisable, come from the government, not from some supernatural creature.

I can't help with your delusions about the concept of inalienable rights. I've been trying for years, but you're utterly fixated on your strawman. But if it doesn't make sense to you, what does? How are you defining rights?

 

[usmbguest5318]

What kind of right is it?

It can be the same sort of right as are others that gain ascendancy to that status by dint of legal establishment/pronouncement as such.

There are very few rights accorded by nature. Freedom of expression, association and movement are natural rights. So is the right to eat and the right to property, although the property right is permanent, the property to which one has a right is not. As best as I can tell, all other rights we Americans enjoy are such only because of jurisprudential, moral/ethical/theistic and perhaps political constructs.

 

[dblack]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

So you concede that what is or isn't a right, secured by the government, is wholly up to the People to decide.

Which rights government protects, and which the violate, is definitely up to government. Why did you capitalize "People"?

Because we have a Government of the People.

But why is People capitalized? Is it a holy word or something?

 

[dblack]

I offer the hope that a democratic government of the People can rightly determine what to recognize as a right worthy of protection by the government.

Quit beating around the bush. What does do you mean by "recognize as a right"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where is the right to life for the innocent growing inside a woman with a heart beat at
2 months?
That is what the opposition's viewpoint is, they speak for the voice that can't.The right to life.

It's the same argument. The "Health Care is a Right" people claim that the right to life means someone else is obligated to ensure that you can live. The Right to Lifers claim the right to life of a fetus means that someone else (starting with the mother) is obligated to ensure its birth. Both arguments mis-construe the right to life as a positive claim on the service of others.

So you concede that what is or isn't a right, secured by the government, is wholly up to the People to decide.

Which rights government protects, and which the violate, is definitely up to government. Why did you capitalize "People"?

Because we have a Government of the People.

But why is People capitalized? Is it a holy word or something?

What a bizarre way to dodge the subject.