Texas bans abortion.

[Warbler]

Agreed: it was not a violation of rights as those rights did not existfor slaves or women before the people voted for those rights. "Rights endowed by a Creator/nature" and "morality"...or what we consider good/bad or right/wrong are two different things. You are conflating the two.

No, I am not. I am saying a person has a right to not be owned by another human being, regardless of what any government or group of people would say on the matter. I am saying slavery was gross violation of the rights of black people. If you don't agree with that, I don't know what else to say.

Which it isn't. Rights are given by the governing body, be that a democratic one or not. If the people are not happy with the governing body, they get rid of it whether it's a king, a Parliament, a dictator, or a political party in power.

but why would would they get rid of a king or dictator or political party in power? Maybe because the people believed same were violating their rights?

Yes, and they have been. See the right to own slaves taken away, the right to sell alcohol taken away, the right to work children taken away.

I am not sure about selling alcohol(btw they made that legal again), but I would say there is no natural right to own slaves. No one has the right own another human being.

Exactly. If those rights are not given by the governing body, they can't be 'violated'.

well if you don't think slavery violated the rights of black people, I don't know what to say to you.

Are we now violating the rights of slave owners? What about the rights of employers to make children work 8 hours a day? No...because we took those rights away.

As I said above, I don't think there is any natural right to own slaves or work children 8 or more hours a day.

But they're not. They are a human construct that can be given or rescinded. There is nothing divine or supernatural about them.




Only if those rights are given in their laws and the governments are ignoring those laws...which they do. Again, "rights" and our idea of right/wrong are two different things. You are conflating rights with moral/ethical beliefs of our western society.

*sigh* I think we are just going in circles at this point. You think rights only exist if a government says they exist, I say it is more complicated than that, that they come from a creator or nature as founders believed. Don't know what else to say.

 

[Warbler]

What was I thinking? Obviously the experience of people working in the field of pregnancy could not hold a candle to what "makes sense" to you.

I am not saying I know better than they, I am just saying it doesn't make sense to me. But what do I know?

 

[Warbler]

Yes.

agree to disagree.

 

[Warbler]

Yes, which you got from me. But you ignore the part that claiming it was from 'a higher power' was, in essence, claiming that God/Right/Nature was 'on their side'. This is no big surprise as both sides in almost every war claim that.

It was not just about claiming God was was on their side. It was about
- claiming that there were certain rights that existed despite not being recognized by government

- that the king had violated those rights

- that when a government or king violates those rights enough the government can overthrow such government and install an new one to secure those rights.

As I said, the entire idea of "nature" endowing certain rights comes from the idea that nature is what God intended.

You don't have to believe in God to believe what rights more than just what the government does and does not give you.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You don't have to believe in God to believe what rights more than just what the government does and does not give you.

And there you have it, I'm glad you are realizing that the idea of rights is a human construct, a belief.

 

[Warbler]

We can as our government consists of legislators we vote for and their doing so would break our laws.

Not the point.

Exactly: it was a justification for the revolution based on their beliefs. It did not make it fact.



It's based on that "idea"; that does not make that idea a fact.

It may be opinion, but it still have America stands for, and what this country is all about. If you can't recognize that, I can't help you.

And you have yet to give any evidence of that idea. How about a citation?

"James Wilson of Pennsylvania, later argued that the act of enumerating the rights of the people would have been dangerous, because it would imply that rights not explicitly mentioned did not exist;[11] Hamilton echoed this point in Federalist No. 84" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Sounds like the founders believed in the existence of rights despite them not being explicitly mentioned. If they are not explicitly mentioned, just where do you think the founders thought the rights in question came from?

I've given a completely different view about the opposition, and I can cite evidence.

It won't change the fact that the founders argued and believed that rights came not from kings or governments by from a creator or nature.

 

[Warbler]

And there you have it, I'm glad you are realizing that the idea of rights is a human construct, a belief.

I don't believe that is what I was saying at all.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

But that was clearly motivated reasoning, as they wanted to get rid of monarchies.

 

[Warbler]

With that, I think I am done with this debate for a while. I wonder how many posts I made in here to day? sheesh.

 

[Aridas]

I realize it puts a serious burden on the pregnant person, but it is either that or the fetus, which may have rights will die. That is why forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, should not be taken lightly. However, I think you can argue death is a much more serious burden, which is what the fetus faces if you abort.

Just to be clear, I poked at that because I think that it absolutely should be part of any equation that balances the woman against the unborn, even if it's not a definitive factor in and of itself. If there's a good chance that it would seriously harm a woman's future if she carried the potential baby to term, even if maternal mortality isn't indicated, that really should be taken into real account without trying to automatically override that with the potential that the unborn represents. As I've poked at before, though, the primary driver of my opinion is the larger effect a policy has on society, rather than direct concern for women's rights or the rights of the unborn.

 

[psionl0]

Sounds like the founders believed in the existence of rights despite them not being explicitly mentioned. If they are not explicitly mentioned, just where do you think the founders thought the rights in question came from?

The FFs believed that these rights belonged to ALL people and not just the noble classes. They believed that these rights were given us by God and not just derived from kings. Whether you believe in God or not, you can be grateful for the FFs' beliefs.

Curiously enough, the first 3 words of the constitution are "We the people" indicating that all powers, rights and responsibilities are derived from the people and not from kings or gods.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
because they realized some might ignore the ideas in the Declaration. Some were opposed to the creation of the bill rights because it would look like government was given the people theses and could therefore take them away, instead of them coming from nature.

Nonsense. Please do some actual research.

It is not nonsense.

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE

"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams Wells, 1819. ME 15:200

What you've given me are Jefferson's views on the 'natural rights' of man. That is not addressing what I said was 'nonsense' which was your claim that, "Some were opposed to the creation of the bill rights because it would look like government was given the people theses and could therefore take them away, instead of them coming from nature" Jefferson's quotes have zero to do with why some "opposed the Bill of Right" being in the Constitution. The first two quotes were from years before the Constitution was even written. You've missed the mark here.

 

[HoverBoarder]

That is the clearest evidence that this whole movement is about punishing women for having sex, not saving precious babies.

Planned Parenthood is one of the few providers of low cost or free contraceptives in most of the communities where they exist. They are actively trying to reduce the number of pregnancies. So this isn’t a why can’t we work together to solve this problem. This is a only one side is actually trying to solve the problem.

When I was a teen a radio station handed out free condom keychains at all of the events. The conservatives were outraged. But that radio station was doing more to reduce abortions than any of them have ever done.

I certainly agree with that. There are plenty of ways in which the pro life crowd could take in creating fewer abortions now.

- birth control
- cost of childbirth
- cost of childcare
- minimum wage increase
- cost of housing
- education
- cost of healthcare
- food assistance

Many in the pro life crowd are so interested in making sure that children are born, but take very little interest in the level of societal care of the child after that. If people cannot care for a child, they are less likely to want to keep that pregnancy.

In reality, many Republican policies cause an unnecessary higher number of abortions, and for decades, they have been desperate to try to blame others for the situations they created.

 

[Stacyhs]

The fetus can't speak for itself, so someone else must speak for its rights.

You keep saying someone "must speak for the fetus" with the assumption that "the fetus" has something to say and, if it does, that this "someone" somehow knows what "the fetus" wants. You make it a sentient being from some arbitrary time plucked out of the air.

I am not talking about John Locke, I was talking about the American founding fathers

When you talk about the Rights of Man, you are talking about John Locke. From whom do you think the FF's derived their ideas on inalienable rights from nature and the Creator?

Most scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government in 1689 at the time of England's Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME

Straight from John Locke:

The significance of Locke’s vision of political society can scarcely be exaggerated. His integration of individualism within the framework of the law of nature and his account of the origins and limits of legitimate government authority inspired the U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) and the broad outlines of the system of government adopted in the U.S. Constitution. George Washington, the first president of the United States, once described Locke as “the greatest man who had ever lived.” In France too, Lockean principles found clear expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and other justifications of the French Revolution of 1789.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'm sorry, but your speaking out of ignorance. That was not a concern of those who opposed the Bill of Right. I suggest you do some research. The opposition to a Bill of Rights was because they feared any rights specifically not enumerated would, by default, NOT be rights. Therefore, Madison included that Rights were not restricted only to those in the B of R in the 9th Amendment .

"any rights specifically not enumerated would, by default, NOT be rights" hmm, isn't that exactly what you and some of the others here are arguing? That only rights that exist are those enumerated by government?

No. We're saying that the law has enumerated who has rights: those BORN. I've presented that law to you twice now. So it doesn't matter what rights are enumerated or not because the UNBORN are not included in who has rights.

The only way you can have rights that not enumerated by government is if they exist despite not being enumerated by government, if they are given by something other than government.

Like I've been saying, the idea aka philosophy that some Creator/nature bestows 'rights' is a human construct. It is not tangible or provable.
Rights don't exist unless recognized by the law/ the government made by people. Fundamentalist Mormons claim that God not only gave them the right to plural marriage, but mandates it. Just how do you think that goes over with the law?

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
The problem with the "creator" or "nature" given rights argument is that people are the ones that decide what rights the creator or nature has bestowed. People create rights, just like people create gods.

No, people and governments decide what rights are recognized.

Just how do you think people and governments decide what those rights are? Does God or Nature send them a memo which they upgrade every so often?

Dear John Locke,

Nature and I have decided that it's time for people to have the rights to life, liberty, and property so write up a Second Treatise right away.

Yours Sincerely,

God

People decide what rights people have. Not some Creator or personified "nature".

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That's what I love about Mormonism - they get regular updates to their religion.

 

[smartcooky]

I certainly agree with that. There are plenty of ways in which the pro life crowd could take in creating fewer abortions now.

- birth control
- cost of childbirth
- cost of childcare
- minimum wage increase
- cost of housing
- education
- cost of healthcare
- food assistance

Many in the pro life crowd are so interested in making sure that children are born, but take very little interest in the level of societal care of the child after that. If people cannot care for a child, they are less likely to want to keep that pregnancy. In reality, many Republican policies cause an unnecessary higher number of abortions, and for decades, they have been desperate to try to blame others for the situations they created.

Absolutely, 100% nailed flush on the head!

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warbler View Post
Perhaps they should also do some research about the possibility of trauma caused by aborting the fetus. I just find it difficult to believe they would experience all that much trauma giving up the baby for adoption when they were ready to abort same some months ago. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That it doesn't make sense to you is irrelevant.

To you and others, maybe, but not to me.

It's irrelevant because you are have not been, are not, and will never be put in the position to make that choice. So it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense to you that a woman would "experience all that much trauma giving up the baby for adoption when they were ready to abort same some months ago." What is relevant is how those women feel.

 

[Stacyhs]

Then it must not exist, apparently. Good argument.

Now, that's some argument: someone refuses to define something so it must not exist.

 

[cosmicaug]

Just because one has a sound mind, doesn't mean they have any medical expertise. We were discusses when it was/wasn't too dangerous to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

These are different roles. The doctor has some expertise in quantifying risk (though it is not entirely quantifiable, of course). The patient has the right to use that quantified risk and base her decision regarding whether she is willing to undergo that risk upon that quantification.

Informed consent.

Information comes from the healthcare professionals.
Consent comes from the patient.

For example, this (going to the point of needing a colostomy bag) is a very tiny risk. Nevertheless, your doctor doesn't get to force you to be exposed to that risk if you decide that you do not want to be exposed to even that tiny risk.

We are not talking rocket surgery here.