"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."

[Conservative65]

Hey, Democrats LIKE being oppressed.

If they didn't they'd leave the party that tells them what they'e allowed to think. Or do they goons (unionized, no doubt) guarding the exists?

They have been brainwashed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

THIS IS YOU>>>

How do you the Creator doesn't view the fetus as something other than a born person? Did He tell you that?[sic]

Understand? That was you asking me to clarify a point.

So here's me doing THAT>>>

A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.


There's nothing complex about any of this. Nothing at all... .

Did ya see that?

That was me demonstrating that we KNOW God's will through God's ACTIONS; with his ACTIONS being the WAY HE DESIGNED THE HUMAN BODY... THE DESIGN DETERMINES THE PURPOSE!

If you cannot understand that, then you're not qualified for participation in public discourse. Which could very well be the case. A LOT of people simply are not qualified for freedom. And that is why slavery was so prevalent for so long.

So anywho... you then came back, asserted that I had 'said' things which I had not, you then returned to concede that you knew when you asserted that which was NOT TRUE, that such was not true proving yourself to be a LIAR. Which is again inevitable, given that one can't BE a Liberal and NOT BE A LIAR! As Left-think rests entirely upon relativism and relativism is deceit.

So next we see you again, returning to assert that which is false as truth. This time however you're relegated to almost pleading that you 'feel' that abortion is a RIGHT and someone who disagrees doesn't change that...

LOL! It is truly ADORABLE... so richly pathetic.

So HERE ya are, doin' THAT:

Where you insisted that abortion is not a right. Who decides what are or are not rights?

Ok?

The thing about a debate, is that one must read (Hear) the actual contest... where one merely pretends that the contest wasn't advanced, thus pretending that the specific points central to such do not exist, it tends to slow the process down.

Which is where we're at now... requiring that we should review:

1- A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

2- That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

3- Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

4- And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

5- We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.

Now with regard to what is and is not a right: As I said earlier:

1- Rights are only possible where such are recognized in everyone, as everyone is equal before God.

2- Therefore, any right you possess can never be exercised to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

3- Thus, where 'Abortion were a right', the exercising of that right would not prevent another from exercising their own rights.

4- SO... because the very act of abortion results in the taking of a thoroughly defenseless, utterly innocent human life, thus precluding that human from exercising its right to its life... we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'.

And THAT is how we "KNOW" what a right IS and is NOT.

Now those are facts which demonstrate what I have said... therefore where you come back and say "You said X or Y", if X and Y do not match this record, you'll again be demonstrated to BE a LIAR! (Which is not that big a deal, given the axiomatic require in nature that to BE a liberal, is to BE a liar. I'm just recording that process within this discussion, for use at another time. I wanted you to know, that this call is being recorded)

You say:

"we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'"

So you admit that it is in fact men who decide what are and are not 'rights', and thus you concede there are not in fact any natural or God given rights,

but only rights that men arbitrarily decide are rights.

Therefore, men, acting from positions of power in Government, decide what your rights will or will not be.

No... I say that we observe the laws of nature and reason that the evidence provided by the world around us, establishes what is rightful and wrongful behavior.

Our having OBSERVED THE LAWS, is NOT US "DECIDING" the laws.

For instance, we do not 'decide' to be forced toward the center of mass... Nature decides that by virtue of the processes inherent to our existence. Just as we do not "DECIDE" that a life spent abusing chemicals will stunt the cognitive development of that individuals mind, thus precluding that it will rise anywhere near its potential and likely spend most of its existence, predictably suffering chronic despair... or that a female who chooses poorly in terms of her right to choose with whom, when and where she allows into her body, will bear the unenviable consequences of those poor choices, as will the male who choose poorly... .

These are immutable laws of nature and they are in full force and effect, whether we recognize them or not... and we all stand equal in the eyes of nature, as we are judged for our behavior, by those law.

Again, while this is all elementary, er huh... 'very simple stuff', it ma well be well beyond your means to understand.

All I'd ask of you, if such is the case, is that you spend much more time READING and much less time typing.

Otherwise, without regard to any other consideration, that should conclude this discussion as there is no longer any potential for you to 'reasonably' not understand any of it, assuming you're not an imbecile.

 

[NYcarbineer]

THIS IS YOU>>>

How do you the Creator doesn't view the fetus as something other than a born person? Did He tell you that?[sic]

Understand? That was you asking me to clarify a point.

So here's me doing THAT>>>

A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.


There's nothing complex about any of this. Nothing at all... .

Did ya see that?

That was me demonstrating that we KNOW God's will through God's ACTIONS; with his ACTIONS being the WAY HE DESIGNED THE HUMAN BODY... THE DESIGN DETERMINES THE PURPOSE!

If you cannot understand that, then you're not qualified for participation in public discourse. Which could very well be the case. A LOT of people simply are not qualified for freedom. And that is why slavery was so prevalent for so long.

So anywho... you then came back, asserted that I had 'said' things which I had not, you then returned to concede that you knew when you asserted that which was NOT TRUE, that such was not true proving yourself to be a LIAR. Which is again inevitable, given that one can't BE a Liberal and NOT BE A LIAR! As Left-think rests entirely upon relativism and relativism is deceit.

So next we see you again, returning to assert that which is false as truth. This time however you're relegated to almost pleading that you 'feel' that abortion is a RIGHT and someone who disagrees doesn't change that...

LOL! It is truly ADORABLE... so richly pathetic.

So HERE ya are, doin' THAT:

Where you insisted that abortion is not a right. Who decides what are or are not rights?

Ok?

The thing about a debate, is that one must read (Hear) the actual contest... where one merely pretends that the contest wasn't advanced, thus pretending that the specific points central to such do not exist, it tends to slow the process down.

Which is where we're at now... requiring that we should review:

1- A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

2- That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

3- Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

4- And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

5- We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.

Now with regard to what is and is not a right: As I said earlier:

1- Rights are only possible where such are recognized in everyone, as everyone is equal before God.

2- Therefore, any right you possess can never be exercised to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

3- Thus, where 'Abortion were a right', the exercising of that right would not prevent another from exercising their own rights.

4- SO... because the very act of abortion results in the taking of a thoroughly defenseless, utterly innocent human life, thus precluding that human from exercising its right to its life... we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'.

And THAT is how we "KNOW" what a right IS and is NOT.

Now those are facts which demonstrate what I have said... therefore where you come back and say "You said X or Y", if X and Y do not match this record, you'll again be demonstrated to BE a LIAR! (Which is not that big a deal, given the axiomatic require in nature that to BE a liberal, is to BE a liar. I'm just recording that process within this discussion, for use at another time. I wanted you to know, that this call is being recorded)

You say:

"we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'"

So you admit that it is in fact men who decide what are and are not 'rights', and thus you concede there are not in fact any natural or God given rights,

but only rights that men arbitrarily decide are rights.

Therefore, men, acting from positions of power in Government, decide what your rights will or will not be.

If anarchy existed, I could say anything I wanted without worrying about being punished by the government. When governments come into being, a natural result of anarchy, they do nothing more than limit what I already had. You confuse the government restricting the use of rights with granting them.

Then you should have no problem citing the text from the Constitution or federal law that grants you the right to, say, free speech.
Please proceed.
Absent this, your position has not a leg to stand on.

THIS IS YOU>>>

How do you the Creator doesn't view the fetus as something other than a born person? Did He tell you that?[sic]

Understand? That was you asking me to clarify a point.

So here's me doing THAT>>>

A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.


There's nothing complex about any of this. Nothing at all... .

Did ya see that?

That was me demonstrating that we KNOW God's will through God's ACTIONS; with his ACTIONS being the WAY HE DESIGNED THE HUMAN BODY... THE DESIGN DETERMINES THE PURPOSE!

If you cannot understand that, then you're not qualified for participation in public discourse. Which could very well be the case. A LOT of people simply are not qualified for freedom. And that is why slavery was so prevalent for so long.

So anywho... you then came back, asserted that I had 'said' things which I had not, you then returned to concede that you knew when you asserted that which was NOT TRUE, that such was not true proving yourself to be a LIAR. Which is again inevitable, given that one can't BE a Liberal and NOT BE A LIAR! As Left-think rests entirely upon relativism and relativism is deceit.

So next we see you again, returning to assert that which is false as truth. This time however you're relegated to almost pleading that you 'feel' that abortion is a RIGHT and someone who disagrees doesn't change that...

LOL! It is truly ADORABLE... so richly pathetic.

So HERE ya are, doin' THAT:

Where you insisted that abortion is not a right. Who decides what are or are not rights?

Ok?

The thing about a debate, is that one must read (Hear) the actual contest... where one merely pretends that the contest wasn't advanced, thus pretending that the specific points central to such do not exist, it tends to slow the process down.

Which is where we're at now... requiring that we should review:

1- A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

2- That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

3- Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

4- And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

5- We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.

Now with regard to what is and is not a right: As I said earlier:

1- Rights are only possible where such are recognized in everyone, as everyone is equal before God.

2- Therefore, any right you possess can never be exercised to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

3- Thus, where 'Abortion were a right', the exercising of that right would not prevent another from exercising their own rights.

4- SO... because the very act of abortion results in the taking of a thoroughly defenseless, utterly innocent human life, thus precluding that human from exercising its right to its life... we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'.

And THAT is how we "KNOW" what a right IS and is NOT.

Now those are facts which demonstrate what I have said... therefore where you come back and say "You said X or Y", if X and Y do not match this record, you'll again be demonstrated to BE a LIAR! (Which is not that big a deal, given the axiomatic require in nature that to BE a liberal, is to BE a liar. I'm just recording that process within this discussion, for use at another time. I wanted you to know, that this call is being recorded)

You say:

"we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'"

So you admit that it is in fact men who decide what are and are not 'rights', and thus you concede there are not in fact any natural or God given rights,

but only rights that men arbitrarily decide are rights.

Therefore, men, acting from positions of power in Government, decide what your rights will or will not be.

No... I say that we observe the laws of nature and reason that the evidence provided by the world around us, establishes what is rightful and wrongful behavior.

Our having OBSERVED THE LAWS, is NOT US "DECIDING" the laws.

For instance, we do not 'decide' to be forced toward the center of mass... Nature decides that by virtue of the processes inherent to our existence. Just as we do not "DECIDE" that a life spent abusing chemicals will stunt the cognitive development of that individuals mind, thus precluding that it will rise anywhere near its potential and likely spend most of its existence, predictably suffering chronic despair... or that a female who chooses poorly in terms of her right to choose with whom, when and where she allows into her body, will bear the unenviable consequences of those poor choices, as will the male who choose poorly... .

These are immutable laws of nature and they are in full force and effect, whether we recognize them or not... and we all stand equal in the eyes of nature, as we are judged for our behavior, by those law.

Again, while this is all elementary, er huh... 'very simple stuff', it ma well be well beyond your means to understand.

All I'd ask of you, if such is the case, is that you spend much more time READING and much less time typing.

Otherwise, without regard to any other consideration, that should conclude this discussion as there is no longer any potential for you to 'reasonably' not understand any of it, assuming you're not an imbecile.

The laws of nature are silent on the subject of abortion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The laws of nature are silent on the subject of abortion.

OH! OK... so you literally ARE an IMBECILE!

Fair enough.

I accept that.

.
.
.

The Reader should know that the above conclusion is a statement of established fact and NOT an epithet... .

To wit:

THIS IS HER>>>

How do you the Creator doesn't view the fetus as something other than a born person? Did He tell you that?[sic]

Understand? That was her asking me to clarify a point.

So here's me doing THAT>>>

A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.


There's nothing complex about any of this. Nothing at all... .

Did ya see that?

That was me demonstrating that we KNOW God's will through God's ACTIONS; with his ACTIONS being demonstrated through the WAY HE DESIGNED THE HUMAN BODY... thus: THE DESIGN DETERMINES THE PURPOSE!

If she cannot understand that, then she's not qualified for participation in public discourse. Which could very well be the case. A LOT of people simply are not qualified for freedom. And that is why slavery was so prevalent for so long.

So anywho... she then came back, asserted that I had 'said' things which I had not, she then returned to concede that she knew when she asserted that which was NOT TRUE, that such was not true proving herself to be a LIAR. Which is again inevitable, given that one can't BE a Liberal and NOT BE A LIAR! As Left-think rests entirely upon relativism and relativism is deceit.

So next we see her again, returning to assert that which is false as truth. This time however she's relegated to almost pleading that she 'feels' that abortion is a RIGHT and someone who disagrees doesn't change that...

LOL! It is truly ADORABLE... so richly pathetic.

So HERE she is, doin' THAT:

Where you insisted that abortion is not a right. Who decides what are or are not rights?

And here's me explaining in no small degree of detail how we can 'know' what is and is NOT a right.>>>

Ok?

The thing about a debate, is that one must read (Hear) the actual contest... where one merely pretends that the contest wasn't advanced, thus pretending that the specific points central to such do not exist, it tends to slow the process down.

Which is where we're at now... requiring that we should review:

1- A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

2- That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

3- Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

4- And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

5- We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.

Now with regard to what is and is not a right: As I said earlier:

1- Rights are only possible where such are recognized in everyone, as everyone is equal before God.

2- Therefore, any right you possess can never be exercised to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

3- Thus, where 'Abortion were a right', the exercising of that right would not prevent another from exercising their own rights, which in this case is the most fundamental of rights: THE RIGHT TO ONE'S GOD-GIVEN LIFE.

4- SO... because the very act of abortion results in the taking of a thoroughly defenseless, utterly innocent human life, thus precluding that human from exercising its right to its life... we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'.

And THAT is how we "KNOW" what a right IS and is NOT. With the added benefit of demonstrating that there is NO POTENTIAL FOR ABORTION TO 'BE' A RIGHT.

Now those are facts which demonstrate what I have said... therefore where she came back and say "You said X or Y", if X and Y do not match this record, she'll again be demonstrated to BE a LIAR! (Which is not that big a deal, given the axiomatic requirement in nature that to BE a liberal, is to BE a liar. I'm just recording that process within this discussion, for use at another time. I wanted you to know, that this call is being recorded)

 

[Spare_change]

Funny how I answered your question before you asked it:
The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change the fact that you have rights; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.
That is, government exists because we have rights.

Now, how about answering this::
Why are you so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law?
so you can't legally or physically exercise a right, but you think you still have it?
seems like you've confuse what you want with what you have.
and yes, rights are why we create government. we create government to protect the rights we want. we don't have them though until others recognize that we do - which means that the government protects them.

i'm set on the idea that government grants rights because it's true. i suppose you could say that we grant them to each other through government, which is probably more accurate.

is there any text in the constition or federal law that says we get our rights from somewhere else? (incidentally it wouldn't matter. we could say in the constitution that all our rights are granted by a magical stone. wouldn't make it true.)

Government that can grant rights can also take them away. Luckily the founding fathers knew better than you.

Did the founders create a government that cannot take away the right to an abortion?

The Founders did not create a right to abortion; a Supreme Court hearing a phony case based on a lie created a right to abortion.

Oh, how convenient. You want rights to be God given, but you're also claiming your right to decide what rights God gave us.

This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt how pathetic this conservative argument is.

I say the Declaration of Independence asserts that the Creator endowed women with the right to an abortion, under the general categories of Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

So does the Supreme Court ... what's your point?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Funny how I answered your question before you asked it:
The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change the fact that you have rights; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.
That is, government exists because we have rights.

Now, how about answering this::
Why are you so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law?
so you can't legally or physically exercise a right, but you think you still have it?
seems like you've confuse what you want with what you have.
and yes, rights are why we create government. we create government to protect the rights we want. we don't have them though until others recognize that we do - which means that the government protects them.

i'm set on the idea that government grants rights because it's true. i suppose you could say that we grant them to each other through government, which is probably more accurate.

is there any text in the constition or federal law that says we get our rights from somewhere else? (incidentally it wouldn't matter. we could say in the constitution that all our rights are granted by a magical stone. wouldn't make it true.)

Government that can grant rights can also take them away. Luckily the founding fathers knew better than you.

Did the founders create a government that cannot take away the right to an abortion?

The Founders did not create a right to abortion; a Supreme Court hearing a phony case based on a lie created a right to abortion.

Oh, how convenient. You want rights to be God given, but you're also claiming your right to decide what rights God gave us.

This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt how pathetic this conservative argument is.

I say the Declaration of Independence asserts that the Creator endowed women with the right to an abortion, under the general categories of Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

So does the Supreme Court ...

So what?

The Supreme Court used invalid reasoning... which is illegitimate reasoning. Thus rendering the 'decision' moot in terms of truth of falsity.

In truth, there is no potential for a right, which through the exercise of that right usurps or otherwise infringes upon the means of another to exercise their own rights.

See how that works? There is no logical extension of that truth which can produce a failure. It works at eve level of reasoning in every potential scenario and is not subject to antiquation or the whimsy of popular culture.

However, using the reasoning advanced in the Roe decision, where I find your existence to be inconvenient, I an entitled to strip you of your life, as long as I keep the matter private.

My guess is that where I were to conclude such, you'd find something off putting or otherwise 'restrictive' in terms of your means to exercise your life, somewhere in and around the point where your life sustaining blood was being pumped out of your newly opened carotid artery.

See how that went all ugly, when we set the same reasoning into terms wherein you a person in your fairly advanced stage of development, and a person for whom I have absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for, in terms of my having taken NO WILLFUL ACTIONS IN CONCEIVING YOU... and have NO RESPONSIBILITIES FOR YOU STEMMING FROM MY OWN BEHAVIOR... find your existence 'inconvenient to me'. So because the matter is PRIVATE, between US... according to Roe, I am perfectly entitled to gut you, disconnect your libs from your body and cast aside your lifeless body with the rest of the worthless material that tends to pile up.

This is why a viable culture should NEVER allow the Intellectually Less Fortunate to get anywhere NEAR positions of any discernible influence on public policy.

 

[Contumacious]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

they may have believed that (although i find it weird that God would give a right to vote) but they sure didn't codify it.

did god just forget to give rights to other peoples of the world?

"Nature's God" is not a religious term. It is a deistic concept. From their standpoint an unknown entity created the universe but it has no relevance in our behaviors.

.


.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

they may have believed that (although i find it weird that God would give a right to vote) but they sure didn't codify it.

did god just forget to give rights to other peoples of the world?

"Nature's God" is not a religious term. It is a deistic concept. From their standpoint an unknown entity created the universe but it has no relevance in our behaviors.

.


.

So you're saying that Nature's God, the deistic concept... which they also understood as the Creator of the Universe, which includes the laws of nature which in every respect govern our behavior... are you saying that knowing this, the founders felt that Nature's God in no way governed our behavior?

Datdontmakenosense... .

 

[Contumacious]

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

they may have believed that (although i find it weird that God would give a right to vote) but they sure didn't codify it.

did god just forget to give rights to other peoples of the world?

"Nature's God" is not a religious term. It is a deistic concept. From their standpoint an unknown entity created the universe but it has no relevance in our behaviors.

.


.

So you're saying that Nature's God, the deistic concept... which they also understood as the Creator of the Universe, which includes the laws of nature which in every respect govern our behavior... are you saying that knowing this, the founders felt that Nature's God in no way governed our behavior?

Datdontmakenosense... .

NATURAL LAW is not dependent upon a god. Those are UNalienable Rights based on REASON and by virtue of the fact that we are Human Beings.

.

 

[whitehall]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka "The Bill of Rights" aren't bestowed by the government. The Bill of Rights are limitations on government power.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Our rights are inalienable, they manifest as a consequence of our humanity; they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” (DC v. Heller (2008)). The Constitution and its case law establishes the boundaries government may not cross when seeking to place restrictions on citizens' liberties, while at the same time affords the citizen an understanding as to the limits of his rights in a free and democratic society, where the Constitution both authorizes government to limit one's civil liberties and protects the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances, seeking relief in the Federal courts.

It is this constant struggle, therefore, between government and governed – government always probing the Constitutional edifice for weaknesses to exploit, and citizens opposing government overreach in the neutral venue of the courts – that a free, just, and viable society is maintained.

This is such nonsense... Rights are not absolute and this is without regard to government whimsy.

I am entitled to do whatever the hell I feel is necessary to fulfill my life, as along as my exercise of that rightful behavior does not infringe upon the means of another to exercise their own rights.

If I need a double barrel howitzer, loaded with thermo-nuclear warheads, and bolted onto a supersonic fighter jet, then I am entitled, on no less an authority then the Creator of the Universe to possess such... but I am NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO SUCH AT THE EXPENSE OF SO MUCH AS A SINGLE INNOCENT LIFE...

Just as I am entitled to have sexual intercourse with anyone I can talk into it, as long as I am prepared to bear the responsibilities that come as a consequence of engaging in the behavior which nature designed SPECIFICALLY for PROCREATION, thus where a child is conceived, my RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN COITUS RESTS ENTIRELY UPON MY BEARING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SUSTAIN THE LIFE I CONCEIVED.

I am NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO ENGAGE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE AND TO DESTROY THE LIFE THAT I CONCEIVED BECAUSE SUCH IS AN INCONVENIENCE!

See how that works?

I do not get my rights from the Government, thus I do not consult the government in the exercising of my rights... in no way and on no level.

My rights are not negotiable, I will not compromise on the exercising of them and I will not tolerate another exercising their would-be right at the expense of my means to exercise my own.

Because I am an American and that... is how we roll.

What convoluted, tortured logic .... clearly, you don't even understand what your rights are, nor do you understand the social contract inherent in those rights.

Rights are absolute ... until you grasp that, you'll never understand. "double barrel howitzer, loaded with thermo-nuclear warheads" is not a right ... but, I'll leave you to figure that out.

(Look out, folks, here's where they trot out the "but you believe in the Second Amendment" rights BS - hoping to catch me in a massive faux pas)

Rights are absolute. But we may not exercise them absolutely.
Understand?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

they may have believed that (although i find it weird that God would give a right to vote) but they sure didn't codify it.

did god just forget to give rights to other peoples of the world?

"Nature's God" is not a religious term. It is a deistic concept. From their standpoint an unknown entity created the universe but it has no relevance in our behaviors.

.


.

So you're saying that Nature's God, the deistic concept... which they also understood as the Creator of the Universe, which includes the laws of nature which in every respect govern our behavior... are you saying that knowing this, the founders felt that Nature's God in no way governed our behavior?

Datdontmakenosense... .

NATURAL LAW is not dependent upon a god. Those are UNalienable Rights based on REASON and by virtue of the fact that we are Human Beings.

.

False... they are entirely dependent upon God, because in the absence OF GOD, they cannot exist.

That they are deduced, or otherwise observed through reason, through consideration of the relevant facts, such as our humanity... is irrelevant to their origin.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So ... Jason... I ask again. Do any of those American principle feel familiar to ya?

Not really. I consider most of what you say patriotic b.s., not trying to be rude or anything. The founders didn't intend for the common man to have too much of a say in governing to begin with. Patriotic words fill a guy with pride, which is great when you need recruits for war, for example.

You are incorrect.
An example of you flawed theory is the Founders created a citizen legislature

 

[Contumacious]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka "The Bill of Rights" aren't bestowed by the government. The Bill of Rights are limitations on government power.

That is correct.

But that is no longer the Constitutional Law in the US.


As the op stated fascism rules in the us. Under that concept an individual has those rights which the bureaucrats have extended to him.


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini

 

[Conservative65]

Funny how I answered your question before you asked it:
The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change the fact that you have rights; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.
That is, government exists because we have rights.

Now, how about answering this::
Why are you so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law?
so you can't legally or physically exercise a right, but you think you still have it?
seems like you've confuse what you want with what you have.
and yes, rights are why we create government. we create government to protect the rights we want. we don't have them though until others recognize that we do - which means that the government protects them.

i'm set on the idea that government grants rights because it's true. i suppose you could say that we grant them to each other through government, which is probably more accurate.

is there any text in the constition or federal law that says we get our rights from somewhere else? (incidentally it wouldn't matter. we could say in the constitution that all our rights are granted by a magical stone. wouldn't make it true.)

Government that can grant rights can also take them away. Luckily the founding fathers knew better than you.

Did the founders create a government that cannot take away the right to an abortion?

The Founders did not create a right to abortion; a Supreme Court hearing a phony case based on a lie created a right to abortion.

Oh, how convenient. You want rights to be God given, but you're also claiming your right to decide what rights God gave us.

This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt how pathetic this conservative argument is.

I say the Declaration of Independence asserts that the Creator endowed women with the right to an abortion, under the general categories of Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

So does the Supreme Court ... what's your point?

The Declaration of Independence isn't the law of the land. That you use that loose of an interpretation is proof beyond a reasonable doubt how pathetic Liberals are by thinking anything they want to do they should be allowed to do. If a woman has a right to an abortion, give her a coat hanger and let her go at it. She can pursue all the happiness she wants. Also, your problem is that you equate pursuit of happiness as a guarantee of happiness.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka "The Bill of Rights" aren't bestowed by the government. The Bill of Rights are limitations on government power.

That is correct.

But that is no longer the Constitutional Law in the US.


As the op stated fascism rules in the us. Under that concept an individual has those rights which the bureaucrats have extended to him.


...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

Benito Mussolini

Well this may be true in environments wherein God is optional, some abstract deistic concept, but for Americans, where a bureaucrat comes to determine our rights, we will send that bureaucrat seeking employment and where he brings arms to enforce his edict, we well erase him... . See Bundy Ranch: Nevada and the recent reduction of Democrat Majorities in Nevadan state governance to ZERO.

 

[Conservative65]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Wrong. Rights are restricted by governments. Everyone has a right to free speech. That it's not absolute has nothing to do with whether or not that right exist but to what extent the GOVERNMENT allows it. Restrictions about not yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre aren't put in place by the right but by the government limiting that right. Some governments such as N. Korea choose to limit them drastically. That doesn't mean the right doesn't exist just the ability to and degree to which it can be exercised.

Government doesn't restrict the right... there is no potential for a RIGHT, where the exercise of such infringes upon the means of another to exercise their own rights. (Government is merely pointing out that you have no right to injure another through speech.)

Because I have a right to my good health, where you exercise your right to speak, while failing to bear your responsibility to NOT DO SO TO THE PREDICTABLE INURY OF ANOTHER'S MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN RIGHTS, you forfeit your right to remain free, as you've shown poor judgment, thus are not worthy of the trust that you will exercise good judgement and not injure others..

Thus you're morning lesson in: THE BASIS OF WESTERN JURISPRUDENCE.

You don't have a right to good health if in the providing of it someone else is forced to pay for it, thus, denying them of a right they have to their own money.

You're morning less: Your right to anything can't restrict mine no matter what you think.

 

[Conservative65]

THIS IS YOU>>> Understand? That was you asking me to clarify a point.

So here's me doing THAT>>> Did ya see that?

That was me demonstrating that we KNOW God's will through God's ACTIONS; with his ACTIONS being the WAY HE DESIGNED THE HUMAN BODY... THE DESIGN DETERMINES THE PURPOSE!

If you cannot understand that, then you're not qualified for participation in public discourse. Which could very well be the case. A LOT of people simply are not qualified for freedom. And that is why slavery was so prevalent for so long.

So anywho... you then came back, asserted that I had 'said' things which I had not, you then returned to concede that you knew when you asserted that which was NOT TRUE, that such was not true proving yourself to be a LIAR. Which is again inevitable, given that one can't BE a Liberal and NOT BE A LIAR! As Left-think rests entirely upon relativism and relativism is deceit.

So next we see you again, returning to assert that which is false as truth. This time however you're relegated to almost pleading that you 'feel' that abortion is a RIGHT and someone who disagrees doesn't change that...

LOL! It is truly ADORABLE... so richly pathetic.

So HERE ya are, doin' THAT: Ok?

The thing about a debate, is that one must read (Hear) the actual contest... where one merely pretends that the contest wasn't advanced, thus pretending that the specific points central to such do not exist, it tends to slow the process down.

Which is where we're at now... requiring that we should review:

1- A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

2- That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

3- Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

4- And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

5- We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.

Now with regard to what is and is not a right: As I said earlier:

1- Rights are only possible where such are recognized in everyone, as everyone is equal before God.

2- Therefore, any right you possess can never be exercised to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

3- Thus, where 'Abortion were a right', the exercising of that right would not prevent another from exercising their own rights.

4- SO... because the very act of abortion results in the taking of a thoroughly defenseless, utterly innocent human life, thus precluding that human from exercising its right to its life... we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'.

And THAT is how we "KNOW" what a right IS and is NOT.

Now those are facts which demonstrate what I have said... therefore where you come back and say "You said X or Y", if X and Y do not match this record, you'll again be demonstrated to BE a LIAR! (Which is not that big a deal, given the axiomatic require in nature that to BE a liberal, is to BE a liar. I'm just recording that process within this discussion, for use at another time. I wanted you to know, that this call is being recorded)

You say:

"we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'"

So you admit that it is in fact men who decide what are and are not 'rights', and thus you concede there are not in fact any natural or God given rights,

but only rights that men arbitrarily decide are rights.

Therefore, men, acting from positions of power in Government, decide what your rights will or will not be.

If anarchy existed, I could say anything I wanted without worrying about being punished by the government. When governments come into being, a natural result of anarchy, they do nothing more than limit what I already had. You confuse the government restricting the use of rights with granting them.

Then you should have no problem citing the text from the Constitution or federal law that grants you the right to, say, free speech.
Please proceed.
Absent this, your position has not a leg to stand on.

THIS IS YOU>>>

How do you the Creator doesn't view the fetus as something other than a born person? Did He tell you that?[sic]

Understand? That was you asking me to clarify a point.

So here's me doing THAT>>>

A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.


There's nothing complex about any of this. Nothing at all... .

Did ya see that?

That was me demonstrating that we KNOW God's will through God's ACTIONS; with his ACTIONS being the WAY HE DESIGNED THE HUMAN BODY... THE DESIGN DETERMINES THE PURPOSE!

If you cannot understand that, then you're not qualified for participation in public discourse. Which could very well be the case. A LOT of people simply are not qualified for freedom. And that is why slavery was so prevalent for so long.

So anywho... you then came back, asserted that I had 'said' things which I had not, you then returned to concede that you knew when you asserted that which was NOT TRUE, that such was not true proving yourself to be a LIAR. Which is again inevitable, given that one can't BE a Liberal and NOT BE A LIAR! As Left-think rests entirely upon relativism and relativism is deceit.

So next we see you again, returning to assert that which is false as truth. This time however you're relegated to almost pleading that you 'feel' that abortion is a RIGHT and someone who disagrees doesn't change that...

LOL! It is truly ADORABLE... so richly pathetic.

So HERE ya are, doin' THAT:

Where you insisted that abortion is not a right. Who decides what are or are not rights?

Ok?

The thing about a debate, is that one must read (Hear) the actual contest... where one merely pretends that the contest wasn't advanced, thus pretending that the specific points central to such do not exist, it tends to slow the process down.

Which is where we're at now... requiring that we should review:

1- A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

2- That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

3- Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

4- And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

5- We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.

Now with regard to what is and is not a right: As I said earlier:

1- Rights are only possible where such are recognized in everyone, as everyone is equal before God.

2- Therefore, any right you possess can never be exercised to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

3- Thus, where 'Abortion were a right', the exercising of that right would not prevent another from exercising their own rights.

4- SO... because the very act of abortion results in the taking of a thoroughly defenseless, utterly innocent human life, thus precluding that human from exercising its right to its life... we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'.

And THAT is how we "KNOW" what a right IS and is NOT.

Now those are facts which demonstrate what I have said... therefore where you come back and say "You said X or Y", if X and Y do not match this record, you'll again be demonstrated to BE a LIAR! (Which is not that big a deal, given the axiomatic require in nature that to BE a liberal, is to BE a liar. I'm just recording that process within this discussion, for use at another time. I wanted you to know, that this call is being recorded)

You say:

"we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'"

So you admit that it is in fact men who decide what are and are not 'rights', and thus you concede there are not in fact any natural or God given rights,

but only rights that men arbitrarily decide are rights.

Therefore, men, acting from positions of power in Government, decide what your rights will or will not be.

No... I say that we observe the laws of nature and reason that the evidence provided by the world around us, establishes what is rightful and wrongful behavior.

Our having OBSERVED THE LAWS, is NOT US "DECIDING" the laws.

For instance, we do not 'decide' to be forced toward the center of mass... Nature decides that by virtue of the processes inherent to our existence. Just as we do not "DECIDE" that a life spent abusing chemicals will stunt the cognitive development of that individuals mind, thus precluding that it will rise anywhere near its potential and likely spend most of its existence, predictably suffering chronic despair... or that a female who chooses poorly in terms of her right to choose with whom, when and where she allows into her body, will bear the unenviable consequences of those poor choices, as will the male who choose poorly... .

These are immutable laws of nature and they are in full force and effect, whether we recognize them or not... and we all stand equal in the eyes of nature, as we are judged for our behavior, by those law.

Again, while this is all elementary, er huh... 'very simple stuff', it ma well be well beyond your means to understand.

All I'd ask of you, if such is the case, is that you spend much more time READING and much less time typing.

Otherwise, without regard to any other consideration, that should conclude this discussion as there is no longer any potential for you to 'reasonably' not understand any of it, assuming you're not an imbecile.

The laws of nature are silent on the subject of abortion.

So is the Constitution. That a group of dipshits on the SCOTUS made the mistake of saying it did shows they can't read it either.

 

[kaz]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Some people aren't waiting for the next generation to be ignorant...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Government that can grant rights can also take them away. Luckily the founding fathers knew better than you.

Did the founders create a government that cannot take away the right to an abortion?

The Founders did not create a right to abortion; a Supreme Court hearing a phony case based on a lie created a right to abortion.

Oh, how convenient. You want rights to be God given, but you're also claiming your right to decide what rights God gave us.

This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt how pathetic this conservative argument is.

I say the Declaration of Independence asserts that the Creator endowed women with the right to an abortion, under the general categories of Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

So does the Supreme Court ... what's your point?

The Declaration of Independence isn't the law of the land.

Of course not... and that is because the Declaration of Independence is a Charter of Principles... Principles upon which the US Constitution rests and, the US Constitution is the basis on which US Legal Code. So you should be able ot see that the US Charter of Principles, is the BASIS of the US Legal Code; OKA: The Law of the Land.