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

[alang1216]

What does it matter? Once it’s a cake (child), you can’t destroy it because of a right to life.

No right is absolute, not even that one.

 

[alang1216]

A natural person is a biological entity as it is even defined that way in current laws.

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

Your denials have been defeated for quite some time now.

I deny it.

 

[Chuz Life]

It’s my analogy. How is it “false”?

How can I explain to someone that the making of a cake is a poor or false analogy for how a new organism is created? ...

Shared via Copilot

copilot.microsoft.com

 

[Chuz Life]

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.


I deny it.

Then you have to deny the scientific basis used in fetal homicide laws as well.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

www.law.cornell.edu

Thus, whether you continue to embrace the denial or not, your denial has been in fact defeated.

These laws do in fact have a basis in science.

 

[alang1216]

Then you have to deny the scientific basis used in fetal homicide laws as well.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

www.law.cornell.edu

Thus, whether you continue to embrace the denial or not, your denial has been in fact defeated.

These laws do in fact have a basis in science.

These are not scientific laws like gravity, they are man-made reflections of the prevailing prevailing party in government. Science is fact and immutable, laws are temporary and evolve.

 

[Chuz Life]

These are not scientific laws like gravity, they are man-made reflections of the prevailing prevailing party in government. Science is fact and immutable, laws are temporary and evolve.

"Person" is a ******* legal construct guided and ******* based on S-C-I-E-N-C-E.

And you ******* know it.

I'm done letting you waste my time suggesting otherwise.

So, back on the iggy you go.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No right is absolute, not even that one.

There are absolute rights, you just have to have a moral government to enforce them. I think you’re getting the two mixed up. Sure, you can’t prevent all murder, but life is still a protected right, and you get punishment if you take one.

 

[alang1216]

There are absolute rights, you just have to have a moral government to enforce them. I think you’re getting the two mixed up. Sure, you can’t prevent all murder, but life is still a protected right, and you get punishment if you take one.

Good luck naming an absolute right. Life may be a right but the government, even a moral one, can take your life under certain circumstances, e.g., you commit murder.

 

[progressive hunter]

Good luck naming an absolute right. Life may be a right but the government, even a moral one, can take your life under certain circumstances, e.g., you commit murder.

only after due process has been performed, which is another right,,

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Good luck naming an absolute right. Life may be a right but the government, even a moral one, can take your life under certain circumstances, e.g., you commit murder.

You’re dancing. And you have no ethical framework anyways. You think the mob rules, and you’d stand by as a government you support legalized slavery. You’ve admitted this.

 

[alang1216]

only after due process has been performed, which is another right,,

What I think you are saying that one right may conflict with another right? Quite correct. The rights of the unborn conflict with the rights of the mother in this case.

 

[alang1216]

You’re dancing. And you have no ethical framework anyways. You think the mob rules, and you’d stand by as a government you support legalized slavery. You’ve admitted this.

You're evading the question I asked.

I have my ethical framework, it is based in reality, not some imagined divine truth.

I never said I'd support a government that legalized slavery, only that I believed democracy is the best form of government. I don't support the government of this president but I'm not about to start a violent rebellion to change it or storm the Capitol to subvert our democracy. I'm hopeful the next election will do that for me.

 

[progressive hunter]

What I think you are saying that one right may conflict with another right? Quite correct. The rights of the unborn conflict with the rights of the mother in this case.

no conflict at all,,

a mother does not have a right to murder her child,,

her rights end where the childs begin,,

 

[alang1216]

no conflict at all,,

a mother does not have a right to murder her child,,

her rights end where the childs begin,,

Does the child have the right to kill the mother?

 

[Hafar1014]

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.

There are no rights in communism.
IN America unalienable rights are inherent and not granted by the government or peers. This gives the people the right to alter or abolish government that becomes destructive of these ends.

 

[progressive hunter]

Does the child have the right to kill the mother?

what percentage of abortions are for the life of the MOTHER is in danger,,

 

[alang1216]

what percentage of abortions are for the life of the MOTHER is in danger,,

An evasion, not an answer. Again: Does the child have the right to kill the mother?

 

[progressive hunter]

An evasion, not an answer. Again: Does the child have the right to kill the mother?

no one has a right to kill another person,,

I figured that was a given, but I forgot I am talking to a leftist that doesnt believe in human rights or common sense,,

 

[alang1216]

no one has a right to kill another person,,

I figured that was a given, but I forgot I am talking to a leftist that doesnt believe in human rights or common sense,,

Another evasion, another non-answer. Again: Does the child have the right to kill the mother?

Even if it was a one-in-a-million event, would you allow an abortion to save the life of the mother?

An abortion to save the life of the mother is a medically necessary intervention performed when a pregnancy poses a life-threatening risk, such as severe hemorrhaging, sepsis, eclampsia, or ectopic pregnancy.

Medical and Legal Context

• Conditions: Conditions requiring life-saving abortion include premature rupture of membranes (sepsis risk), placenta previa, severe cardiac or renal disease, and ectopic pregnancies, which are never viable.
• Medical Necessity: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) states that these procedures are essential, as pregnancy can significantly compromise a person's health or cause death.

 

[progressive hunter]

Another evasion, another non-answer. Again: Does the child have the right to kill the mother?

Even if it was a one-in-a-million event, would you allow an abortion to save the life of the mother?

An abortion to save the life of the mother is a medically necessary intervention performed when a pregnancy poses a life-threatening risk, such as severe hemorrhaging, sepsis, eclampsia, or ectopic pregnancy.

Medical and Legal Context

• Conditions: Conditions requiring life-saving abortion include premature rupture of membranes (sepsis risk), placenta previa, severe cardiac or renal disease, and ectopic pregnancies, which are never viable.
• Medical Necessity: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) states that these procedures are essential, as pregnancy can significantly compromise a person's health or cause death.

so me saying "no one has a right to kill another person" is a deflection??

I answered it directly,,

yes if its proven the life of the mother is in danger the child should be removed,,

but as we know thats such a small percentage its almost not worth discussing,,


if the mother is 8 months along and its proven her life is in danger do you perform an abortion or just remove the child alive??