If liberals are right and there's no right to life then isn't it wrong to punish murder?

Pedro de San Patricio

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
271
Points
140
Location
California
Let's say that they're right. I don't believe this to be the case, but let's just assume that they are. A man finishes work and starts walking home one night. He remembers its payday and goes a different way than normal because there's an ATM a few blocks from his house that way. At the ATM a stranger gets in line behind him. The next thing the man feels is a gun in his back and the stranger whispers that he would withdraw all of his money and follow the stranger into the alley if he valued his life. The man complies. The stranger takes his wallet and shoots the man in the face. Going by the logic presented by liberals, wouldn't the mugging itself be the only crime the stranger committed? The man still had a right to his property. He just didn't have a right to his life. With that being the case, wouldn't the murder have been morally neutral? Why wouldn't the mugger have been within his rights to carry it out if that's the case? If he was, then wouldn't punishing him for exercising his right be the actual immoral act? I would really appreciate it if someone could answer these questions and show me a strong case for this without the usual back and forth bullshit.
 

Roadrunner

Roadrunner
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
14,126
Reaction score
2,754
Points
290
Location
USA
Let's say that they're right. I don't believe this to be the case, but let's just assume that they are. A man finishes work and starts walking home one night. He remembers its payday and goes a different way than normal because there's an ATM a few blocks from his house that way. At the ATM a stranger gets in line behind him. The next thing the man feels is a gun in his back and the stranger whispers that he would withdraw all of his money and follow the stranger into the alley if he valued his life. The man complies. The stranger takes his wallet and shoots the man in the face. Going by the logic presented by liberals, wouldn't the mugging itself be the only crime the stranger committed? The man still had a right to his property. He just didn't have a right to his life. With that being the case, wouldn't the murder have been morally neutral? Why wouldn't the mugger have been within his rights to carry it out if that's the case? If he was, then wouldn't punishing him for exercising his right be the actual immoral act? I would really appreciate it if someone could answer these questions and show me a strong case for this without the usual back and forth bullshit.

You do not understand the lib, Pedro.

To a liberal, there is no right to life, until one is convicted of a heinous capital crime.
 

amrchaos

Pentheus torn apart
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
9,498
Reaction score
933
Points
215
Location
Miami
You know, it is possible to look at it another way.

If it is true that only God can give and take away rights, how is it possible for man(in a more specific case, the judicial system) to condemn another man to death--i.e. deprive him of his right to life?

Makes you wonder, what the hell are "rights" anyway. That is if you are honestly asking the question in the philosophical sense.
 
OP
P

Pedro de San Patricio

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
271
Points
140
Location
California
You do not understand the lib, Pedro.

To a liberal, there is no right to life, until one is convicted of a heinous capital crime.
Why would this matter though? Taking a life would be morally neutral if not justified. Or would it not? I'm sure there's a strong, consistent case for this. I was just asking to have it explained.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,462
Points
2,165
The OP is falsely presented, thus it fails on face.

The premise is that the woman has the right to choose.

The questions begin with, when is a fetus a huma
and when can a child be born and sustain life.
 

PratchettFan

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
7,238
Reaction score
746
Points
190
Let's say that they're right. I don't believe this to be the case, but let's just assume that they are. A man finishes work and starts walking home one night. He remembers its payday and goes a different way than normal because there's an ATM a few blocks from his house that way. At the ATM a stranger gets in line behind him. The next thing the man feels is a gun in his back and the stranger whispers that he would withdraw all of his money and follow the stranger into the alley if he valued his life. The man complies. The stranger takes his wallet and shoots the man in the face. Going by the logic presented by liberals, wouldn't the mugging itself be the only crime the stranger committed? The man still had a right to his property. He just didn't have a right to his life. With that being the case, wouldn't the murder have been morally neutral? Why wouldn't the mugger have been within his rights to carry it out if that's the case? If he was, then wouldn't punishing him for exercising his right be the actual immoral act? I would really appreciate it if someone could answer these questions and show me a strong case for this without the usual back and forth bullshit.
I assume this is about abortion. So let's first establish the nature of the full issue, not just one side of it. You have the right to life of the fetus on the one side and the right to control of one's own body on the other. So before I respond to your scenario, please respond to mine.

I need a blood transfusion or I will die. You have my blood type but you do not wish to give your blood. Be clear on this, you are absolutely opposed and adamantly refuse to give your blood. Should I be able to have you taken at gun point to the hospital and your blood taken against your will in order to protect my right to life?
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
liberal, conservative, republican, etc etc

abortion should be ALL PEOPLES concerns... I don't care what the hell you claim to be
 
OP
P

Pedro de San Patricio

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
271
Points
140
Location
California
The OP is falsely presented, thus it fails on face.

The premise is that the woman has the right to choose.

The questions begin with, when is a fetus a huma
and when can a child be born and sustain life.
I assume this is about abortion. So let's first establish the nature of the full issue, not just one side of it. You have the right to life of the fetus on the one side and the right to control of one's own body on the other. So before I respond to your scenario, please respond to mine.

I need a blood transfusion or I will die. You have my blood type but you do not wish to give your blood. Be clear on this, you are absolutely opposed and adamantly refuse to give your blood. Should I be able to have you taken at gun point to the hospital and your blood taken against your will in order to protect my right to life?
Liberals have told me this. I'm asking for clarification and support for this narrative. Granted, I ask the question because of claims made on an abortion thread, but this isn't really about abortion so much as it's about a general right to life, whether it exists, and the moral implications of it being found not to. That's why the example given was about two humans whose personhood seems uncontested. I wanted the focus to be on the moral permissibility of taking of a life rather than what constitutes life.

The original questions:
Wouldn't the mugging itself be the only crime the stranger committed since he was depriving the man of his right to his property?
Wouldn't depriving him of his life have been morally neutral as the man didn't have any particular right to continue living?
If this is, in fact, the case, then wouldn't punishing the stranger for murder be a violation of his own rights?
If not, then why?
 
Last edited:

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,462
Points
2,165
No one has told you anything of the sort.
 

amrchaos

Pentheus torn apart
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
9,498
Reaction score
933
Points
215
Location
Miami
I think you are trying to present the right as if it exists in vacuum---i.e. either you have or you do not.

But the truth is that rights do not always exist independently of each other.

In the example you gave, you described a victim robbed and killed. Only one set of rights has been challenged--the victims.

But in abortion, you have two sets of rights in conflict.

Prachett gave a pretty good example of the conflict
 
R

rdean

Guest
Republicans. What disgusting people. They care about fetus, but when it comes to the "born", they could give a shit. They block health care. Want to cut daycare. Want to cut food stamps for children. Complain the baby is the woman's fault, why should they take care of it?
And they want everyone to know how "moral" and "caring" they are because they show their love by wanting a woman to have an unwanted baby. What a bunch of hypocrites.
 
OP
P

Pedro de San Patricio

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
271
Points
140
Location
California
No one has told you anything of the sort.
Republicans. What disgusting people. They care about fetus, but when it comes to the "born", they could give a shit. They block health care. Want to cut daycare. Want to cut food stamps for children. Complain the baby is the woman's fault, why should they take care of it?
And they want everyone to know how "moral" and "caring" they are because they show their love by wanting a woman to have an unwanted baby. What a bunch of hypocrites.
I think you are trying to present the right as if it exists in vacuum---i.e. either you have or you do not.

But the truth is that rights do not always exist independently of each other.

In the example you gave, you described a victim robbed and killed. Only one set of rights has been challenged--the victims.

But in abortion, you have two sets of rights in conflict.

Prachett gave a pretty good example of the conflict
Just a clump of cells US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum is the particular abortion thread I mentioned. That said, this is not a question about abortion itself. It's not about a fetus. That's why the original scenario didn't involve it and why I didn't bring up the thread that inspired this one until JakeStarkey specifically demanded a source. I was attempting to leave that particular subject alone. I wanted to explore the broader question of whether it's permissible to take a life without what's commonly taken to be good cause (eg self defense) itself and whether, if that is the case, it would still be morally permissible to punish this action and the reasons for this. Does the murderer have a right to murder if the victim has a right not to be murdered? If not, then why not? If so, then would it be a violation of the murderer's own rights to punish him for exercising his right?
 
Last edited:

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,418
Reaction score
17,317
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
“Let's say that they're right. I don't believe this to be the case, but let's just assume that they are.”

It's not a matter of 'let's say,' it is a fact of Constitutional law that prior to birth the embryo/fetus is entitled to no Constitutional protections, where what you believe is indeed wrong:

'After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.'

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 1992

Consequently, the premise of your thread fails as a false comparison fallacy, where you confuse civil law concerning substantive due process and the right to privacy with that of criminal law concerning procedural due process and murder, where in the context of the latter to engage in the unwarranted killing of a person postnatally is in fact murder, and the state is justified in prosecuting a criminal suspect for that alleged crime.

Of course those who perceive the embryo/fetus to be a 'person' are at liberty to do so, and refrain from having an abortion accordingly; they are not at liberty, however, to seek to use the authority of the state to violate a woman's protected liberty of privacy by contriving the lie that abortion is 'murder.'
 
OP
P

Pedro de San Patricio

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
271
Points
140
Location
California
“Let's say that they're right. I don't believe this to be the case, but let's just assume that they are.”

It's not a matter of 'let's say,' it is a fact of Constitutional law that prior to birth the embryo/fetus is entitled to no Constitutional protections, where what you believe is indeed wrong:

'After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.'

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 1992

Consequently, the premise of your thread fails as a false comparison fallacy, where you confuse civil law concerning substantive due process and the right to privacy with that of criminal law concerning procedural due process and murder, where in the context of the latter to engage in the unwarranted killing of a person postnatally is in fact murder, and the state is justified in prosecuting a criminal suspect for that alleged crime.

Of course those who perceive the embryo/fetus to be a 'person' are at liberty to do so, and refrain from having an abortion accordingly; they are not at liberty, however, to seek to use the authority of the state to violate a woman's protected liberty of privacy by contriving the lie that abortion is 'murder.'
Liberals have told me this. I'm asking for clarification and support for this narrative. Granted, I ask the question because of claims made on an abortion thread, but this isn't really about abortion so much as it's about a general right to life, whether it exists, and the moral implications of it being found not to. That's why the example given was about two humans whose personhood seems uncontested. I wanted the focus to be on the moral permissibility of taking of a life rather than what constitutes life.

The original questions:
Wouldn't the mugging itself be the only crime the stranger committed since he was depriving the man of his right to his property?
Wouldn't depriving him of his life have been morally neutral as the man didn't have any particular right to continue living?
If this is, in fact, the case, then wouldn't punishing the stranger for murder be a violation of his own rights?
If not, then why?
Just a clump of cells US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum is the particular abortion thread I mentioned. That said, this is not a question about abortion itself. It's not about a fetus. That's why the original scenario didn't involve it and why I didn't bring up the thread that inspired this one until JakeStarkey specifically demanded a source. I was attempting to leave that particular subject alone. I wanted to explore the broader question of whether it's permissible to take a life without what's commonly taken to be good cause (eg self defense) itself and whether, if that is the case, it would still be morally permissible to punish this action and the reasons for this. Does the murderer have a right to murder if the victim has a right not to be murdered? If not, then why not? If so, then would it be a violation of the murderer's own rights to punish him for exercising his right?
Holy fuck. I give up with you people. -.-
 

PratchettFan

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
7,238
Reaction score
746
Points
190
The OP is falsely presented, thus it fails on face.

The premise is that the woman has the right to choose.

The questions begin with, when is a fetus a huma
and when can a child be born and sustain life.
I assume this is about abortion. So let's first establish the nature of the full issue, not just one side of it. You have the right to life of the fetus on the one side and the right to control of one's own body on the other. So before I respond to your scenario, please respond to mine.

I need a blood transfusion or I will die. You have my blood type but you do not wish to give your blood. Be clear on this, you are absolutely opposed and adamantly refuse to give your blood. Should I be able to have you taken at gun point to the hospital and your blood taken against your will in order to protect my right to life?
Liberals have told me this. I'm asking for clarification and support for this narrative. Granted, I ask the question because of claims made on an abortion thread, but this isn't really about abortion so much as it's about a general right to life, whether it exists, and the moral implications of it being found not to. That's why the example given was about two humans whose personhood seems uncontested. I wanted the focus to be on the moral permissibility of taking of a life rather than what constitutes life.

The original questions:
Wouldn't the mugging itself be the only crime the stranger committed since he was depriving the man of his right to his property?
Wouldn't depriving him of his life have been morally neutral as the man didn't have any particular right to continue living?
If this is, in fact, the case, then wouldn't punishing the stranger for murder be a violation of his own rights?
If not, then why?
Ok. No the mugger gives up his rights when he takes the life of his victim. He has no claim to the victim in any way. He is not protecting himself.

Back to my question. Does my right to life supersede your right to your body?
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,462
Points
2,165
Pedro, your OP is philosophical but the reality confronts its premise.

You have to deal with that first. You have not.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
24,090
Reaction score
6,239
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Holy fuck. I give up with you people. -.-
And we're about to give up on you, Pedro, given your propensity to throw a fit whenever people won't restrict the conversation to meet your demands. Rather control freakish of you.

But let's talk about right to life.

Is the right to life absolute, overriding all other rights?

If you say yes, then others have the right to confiscate your property to save lives.

If you say no, then you've ceded that the pro-choice position is correct, that conflicting rights have to be weighed.
 

Sonny Clark

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Messages
51,089
Reaction score
5,911
Points
1,870
Location
Gadsden Alabama
Let's say that they're right. I don't believe this to be the case, but let's just assume that they are. A man finishes work and starts walking home one night. He remembers its payday and goes a different way than normal because there's an ATM a few blocks from his house that way. At the ATM a stranger gets in line behind him. The next thing the man feels is a gun in his back and the stranger whispers that he would withdraw all of his money and follow the stranger into the alley if he valued his life. The man complies. The stranger takes his wallet and shoots the man in the face. Going by the logic presented by liberals, wouldn't the mugging itself be the only crime the stranger committed? The man still had a right to his property. He just didn't have a right to his life. With that being the case, wouldn't the murder have been morally neutral? Why wouldn't the mugger have been within his rights to carry it out if that's the case? If he was, then wouldn't punishing him for exercising his right be the actual immoral act? I would really appreciate it if someone could answer these questions and show me a strong case for this without the usual back and forth bullshit.
Forget about the label "Liberal". Cold blooded murder is immoral, barbaric, animalistic, and against the law. We are a humane people, not an animalistic barbaric inhumane people. Murder is wrong, against the law, immoral, and should be punished severely. That same principle applies to Conservatives, Liberals, or anyone else that wishes to wear a label. In addition, armed robbery is wrong, against the law, and should also be punished severely. Attaching the word "Liberal" to your argument becomes a moot point in the context of civilized and humane treatment of others.

"The right to life" argument covers many scenarios. It pertains to everything from fetuses and birth, up to and including terminal ill patients. Those cases are usually decided on the merits of each individual case. At any rate, one set of circumstances can not be the guidelines for all cases. Sometimes life is terminated due to rape. Sometimes life is terminated due to severe health issues where a patient has no chance of ever recovering. Sometimes life is terminated as a result of the death penalty. Sometimes life is terminated as in wars. Sometimes life is terminated as a result of accidents. But, when it comes to murder, as in your example, it should be severely punished.
 

amrchaos

Pentheus torn apart
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
9,498
Reaction score
933
Points
215
Location
Miami
Ok--I am going to make an arrogant assumption about the op here.

I think this thread is just that--do the right to life exist. Do we actually have it.

The answer is yes, at least here in America. And Elementary school children are taught that fact.
 

Roadrunner

Roadrunner
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
14,126
Reaction score
2,754
Points
290
Location
USA
You know, it is possible to look at it another way.

If it is true that only God can give and take away rights, how is it possible for man(in a more specific case, the judicial system) to condemn another man to death--i.e. deprive him of his right to life?

Makes you wonder, what the hell are "rights" anyway. That is if you are honestly asking the question in the philosophical sense.
One forfeits the right to life, in a just society like we have, the society does not deprive one of the right to life.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top