Zone1 What are "Rights"? Should we allow them to the other side?

[martybegan]

So life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? You can forfeit your life or liberty for certain crimes. So says the Bible so they don't sound inalienable to me. There are plenty of things that might make you happy that you are forbidden.

Is free speech or the right to bear arms anywhere in the bible?

It's in the Constitution, that means it's protected, and that means we can expect the government to work explicitly to protect those rights.

 

[alang1216]

Rights are not granted to us by Constitutional government, certain ones are protected by it.

Rights are inherent, the question is are they protected or do you have to fight for them, either legislatively or physically.

Remember even the Bill of Rights had to be passed legislatively via the Constitutional amendment process.

As an example, you may believe you have the Right to an Abortion, but it's meaningless in a governmental sense unless it's enshrined in the Constitution as one, either the federal Constitution or your State Constitution. If not, then you either fight for it legislatively or go to the mattresses for it.

So inherent Rights are meaningless unless enshrined in law? Is that what you're saying?

 

[martybegan]

So inherent Rights are meaningless unless enshrined in law? Is that what you're saying?

They aren't meaningless, they just aren't protected.

If you want them protected, you have to fight with then pen or the sword.

 

[Chuz Life]

I'm late to the conversation but here is my (realist philosophy) take on basic human rights. As toobfreak pointed out, there are many kinds of "rights" and it's too easy to muddle them together.

A "right" like the right that a person has to their life is tantamount to a "claim" or objective association.

"Who does the life belong to?"

Doesn't even the life of a tree belong to the tree that is living it?

It does.

By, objective association, we can observe the tree is living it's own life. The tree is not living the life of a bird, newt or any other tree.

So, it would be idiotic and ludicrous for someone to say "what right does that tree have to it's life?"

Because we know the life the tree is living belongs to that tree.

The most direct extension of this is "self defense." All living creatures exhibit some form of self defense. This is (again) objective evidence that the life being defended belongs to the creature that is living it.

In the absence of all governments, laws, etc. . . these truths can still be observed in even the smallest, weirdest and NON human creatures.

Everything else (as far as rights are concerned) extend from that.

The obvious difference between humans and other creatures where these "rights" are concerned is in our ability to communicate about it (rights) and make societal rules that pertain to it.

 

[Cassandro]

Many worldviews have many opinions on what rights are. The communist and leftist often recites that rights are what can be enforced, or what the majority of people believe. Conservatives believe basic human rights (The bill of rights) are above man and are a manifestation of the will of a Creator or higher being (aka God), and thus can't be touched.

This creates an interesting atheist/communist/leftist vs. Christian/Conservative scenario.

If the former thinks rights are based only in what man thinks, and what they can enforce, or at the very least based it on what a majority believes... that really has no base, it's based on nothing.

And if your rights are based on nothing, then they can become anything. They can be given, they can be changed, they can be taken away.. whether it by the latest leftist tyrant or by a misled populace.

Now, as a Christian Conservative, I believe in rights for all people, but it's important to point out that it is the much higher road. My worldview would require me to give rights to people I oppose, when my opposition wouldn't think twice of taking away my rights if they had the power to do so.

My question is this: If Christian populism continues to succeed, and the social movement to not just shape the government how I/we want, but also shame and stigmatize immoral behavior, becomes prominent... How could a leftist/atheist/communist have any problem with that?

They ought to respect it, because they would do the exact same thing.

As much as they don't like to admit it, they would rely on the benevolence of Christians, even though they would offer none back. They would be as cold as necessary to enforce what they want.

I think that (inalienable) rights are based on the belief that individual humans are unique unto themselves. The contrary belief is that we are nothing more than part of a dispersed collective consciousness.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Why is it that conservatives only like democracy when it goes their way?

1. Conservative ideology views pure democracy as immoral, and I've outlined and even used you as an example as to how it is, because you'd make slavery legal in the USA today if the mob demanded it.
2. You progressives and leftists love democracy when it doesn't go your way? LOL.

Slavery was one of the foundations as was oppression of women. Nice ethical framework.

Slavery isn't written into the Constitution, and we had to wring out that evil that had been a worldwide practice since humanity formed.

As for oppression of women.. you'd have to prove that.

Again you hate democracy

Pure democracy absolutely. Anyone should. The USA isn't one.

and consider yourself superior to others.

My moral and ethical framework is superior to yours, and I demonstrated it.

Religious people, like you, feel they answer to a higher power and their morality is absolute and not relative. That may be comforting but is not born out by history. The morality of Christians, for instance, has been changing constantly since its inception. Not unlike other religions I'm familiar with. Christians in the past have done things that Christians today would find immoral, e.g., slavery and anti-Semitism. Note, I don't think Christians are any worse than any other group, I just don't see them as superior either.

Christian ethics haven't changed. The church at times has been corrupted, but the ethics never did.

Meanwhile, identifying you're a Christian doesn't make you one. You have to submit to the theology. We have tons of people who say whatever they want. They aren't all correct.

 

[alang1216]

1. Conservative ideology views pure democracy as immoral, and I've outlined and even used you as an example as to how it is, because you'd make slavery legal in the USA today if the mob demanded it.

You misrepresent my position on slavery. I would never 'make' it legal but I would accept it as legal if it were the law of the land. Doesn't mean I'd vote for it or not attempt to change the law, I just accept I'm not above the law. I don't think you do.

2. You progressives and leftists love democracy when it doesn't go your way? LOL.

No one likes it when things don't go their way but, I for one, don't want to change the rules of the game when I'm losing. I think you do.

Slavery isn't written into the Constitution, and we had to wring out that evil that had been a worldwide practice since humanity formed.

It wasn't conservatives that did that.

As for oppression of women.. you'd have to prove that.

Women originally couldn't vote or own property (if married) and were restricted in opening a bank account.

Pure democracy absolutely. Anyone should. The USA isn't one.

Our democracy should protect minority rights by not be controlled by them.

My moral and ethical framework is superior to yours, and I demonstrated it.

Only in your own mind have you demonstrated it, not in reality.

Christian ethics haven't changed. The church at times has been corrupted, but the ethics never did.

That is so far from reality I don't know where to begin.

Meanwhile, identifying you're a Christian doesn't make you one. You have to submit to the theology. We have tons of people who say whatever they want. They aren't all correct.

I'm not a Christian but it has been my experience that no two Christians define Christianity the same way, nor can they agree who is or is NOT a Christian.

 

[Chuz Life]

You misrepresent my position on slavery. I would never 'make' it legal but I would accept it as legal if it were the law of the land. Doesn't mean I'd vote for it or not attempt to change the law, I just accept I'm not above the law.

Do you use your vote to try to keep abortion legal?

Abortion, just like slavery, is the denial of basic human rights to more vulnerable human beings.

Isn't it?

 

[candycorn]

Its a rather child-like argument that there are two sides. There are multiple sides to any given topic.

 

[alang1216]

Do you use your vote to try to keep abortion legal?

Yes.

Abortion, just like slavery, is the denial of basic human rights to more vulnerable human beings.

Isn't it?

No it isn't, at least to me. A slave is a person, a fertilized egg is not. To me, a person has value, DNA does not.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes.


No it isn't, at least to me. A slave is a person, a fertilized egg is not. To me, a person has value, DNA does not.

We don't even have to go to personhood to make this point.

Is a human being that is in the fetal stage of their life not a "human being?"

Slaves weren't recognized as whole "persons" either.

 

[alang1216]

Is a human being that is in the fetal stage of their life not a "human being?"

We kill human beings all the time: criminals, enemies of our country or religion, etc. Sometimes the value of their lives is insufficient to warrant letting them live.

Slaves weren't recognized as whole "persons" either.

They would have disagreed, a fertilized egg would not.

 

[Chuz Life]

We kill human beings all the time: criminals, enemies of our country or religion, etc. Sometimes the value of their lives is insufficient to warrant letting them live.


They would have disagreed, a fertilized egg would not.

So, temporarily underdeveloped humans are even more fair game than a savage slave was. . .

At least your views track in a linear fashion.

 

[alang1216]

So, temporarily underdeveloped humans are even more fair game than a savage slave was. . .

At least your views track in a linear fashion.

Thanks. To me, DNA is the blueprint for a person. Given the right circumstances it could become a person.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Thanks. To me, DNA is the blueprint for a person. Given the right circumstances it could become a person.

No, it will.. unless you do something to intervene and destroy the development.

That logic could be used on any human life up until full development at like 23-25 years old. There is capital in life, you have to give the cake time to bake. I can't just come take a pan out of your oven, throw your cake batter all over the floor that you took time to make and say I did nothing wrong and you can't object. That was a cake on the way to being baked, so it would be safe to say I destroyed your "cake". It took a violent act to destroy what was naturally and healthily going to happen.

 

[Chuz Life]

Thanks. To me, DNA is the blueprint for a person. Given the right circumstances it could become a person.

Do you think the definition for what a natural person is should be inclusive to include all human beings? Or, exclusive to, you know, make the elimination of certain lesser human beings more acceptable?

 

[alang1216]

No, it will.. unless you do something to intervene and destroy the development.

Except if there is a miscarriage, severe birth defect, or some drops a bomb.

That logic could be used on any human life up until full development at like 23-25 years old. There is capital in life, you have to give the cake time to bake. I can't just come take a pan out of your oven, throw your cake batter all over the floor that you took time to make and say I did nothing wrong and you can't object. That was a cake on the way to being baked, so it would be safe to say I destroyed your "cake". It took a violent act to destroy what was naturally and healthily going to happen.

If I destroy your cake, that is wrong. If you destroy your cake, I'd say that is your right.

 

[alang1216]

Do you think the definition for what a natural person is should be inclusive to include all human beings? Or, exclusive to, you know, make the elimination of certain lesser human beings more acceptable?

If you substitute 'human tissue' for 'human being' you'd might understand my position a bit better.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Except if there is a miscarriage, severe birth defect, or some drops a bomb.

The all-or-nothing fallacy. Holds no weight or refutes nothing I said.

If I destroy your cake, that is wrong. If you destroy your cake, I'd say that is your right.

Boom, exactly.

In your scenario, I destroyed a cake. There, you admitted it

Thus, just install the new word. A woman destroys a human life. We have words for that.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If you substitute 'human tissue' for 'human being' you'd might understand my position a bit better.

Human tissue is the tissue of person who is human. Organs, Muscle, ligaments, fascia, etc. It has the DNA of the being.

And you're not even allowed to destroy those of another person without being guilty of a crime. The zygote is a different human life than the mother, so it's not her human tissue.