Texas bans abortion.

[Stacyhs]

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.


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?




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.


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



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.




*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.

You think that some "Creator/Nature" gives people rights. That they exist whether or not people recognize them as if they are some kind of tangible thing rather than the IDEAS that people create themselves. People's 'rights' are a philosophy, a belief system that only exists if PEOPLE/Society say they do. So tell me, where were all these rights that a Creator/Nature gave to us before John Locke's philosophy became popular during the Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries?

 

[cosmicaug]

Yes they were wrong about slavery. Slavery was a great violation of rights . . . yet these were rights the government failed to recognize . . . yet everyone would agree they existed . . . hmm . . .

Everyone? You write as if government was some detached entity having nothing to do with the people. We just agreed that founding fathers erred here. That's where this "government failed to recognize" came from so it can't be everyone.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
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.

Did I say the Declaration was 'just' about claiming God was on their side? No.
My point was that, by claiming these rights are God-given, it did give them the ability to imply that "God" was on their side. Do you dispute that?

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.

I used to teach history, including US History. You don't have to tell me what the Declaration said or what its purpose was.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
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.

I don't believe in God, but I do believe we all have certain rights. I just don't believe they are God or Nature derived but are created by a society's philosophy reflected in the laws passed by government.

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

Yep!

 

[cosmicaug]

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.

Literature on the matter exists. Research has been done (and there's more but someone else will have to find it). While there's always going to be a certain amount of YMMV, it does not support that in an unwanted pregnancy, abortion is so dreadful compared to the alternative (if anything, the opposite tends to be the case).

 

[psionl0]

Everyone? You write as if government was some detached entity having nothing to do with the people. We just agreed that founding fathers erred here. That's where this "government failed to recognize" came from so it can't be everyone.

Yes the FFs apparently couldn't see the contradiction between life/liberty and owning slaves. Consistent with the biblical norms of that time, they apparently didn't think that the rights of women mattered either so these rights only applied to "all men".

Nevertheless, they laid the foundation that would eventually see rights extended to everybody (rabid right wingers not withstanding).

 

[Stacyhs]

Not the point.

Yes, it was.

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.

Oh no, no, no....do not even attempt to pull that 'patriotic' crap on me.
I said that the FF's claiming rights came from a "higher power" did not make it a fact that they did. Address that instead of finding refuge in questioning my patriotism.

Quote:Originally Posted by Warbler
As I have said previously, some of the founders didn't like the idea of spelling them out in the Bill of rights, they were concerned it would like they were coming from the government and not the creator or nature. But others wanted them spelled out.

Originally posted by Stacyhs
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

Once again you miss the point even though I already pointed it out previously when you did the same thing with Jefferson. The above quote has nothing to do with your claim that "they were concerned it would like they were coming from the government and not the creator or nature"; it has to do with enumerating rights.

Sounds like the founders believed in the existence of rights despite them not being explicitly mentioned.

Yes, they did. Which is why some of them opposed enumerating them in a Bill of Rights for fear the gov't could later say any right not enumerated did not exist which is why, as I've explained previously, Madison included the 9th amendment. But you just don't seem to get it.

If they are not explicitly mentioned, just where do you think the founders thought the rights in question came from?

We know where they THOUGHT those rights came from because they told us: A Creator and Nature. But as I've said repeatedly, what they THOUGHT does not make it a FACT. They also thought most disease was caused by 'bad air' and bleeding let out the 'bad humors' but does that make those medical FACTS?

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.

Nope, nothing will change what they believed because, well....they're all dead. But it doesn't make them RIGHT.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

it's odd that it took until the middle of the 19th Century for the believers in Natural Rights to realize that Slavery was a violation of a Natural Right, and that everyone before got it wrong.

 

[Stacyhs]

it's odd that it took until the middle of the 19th Century for the believers in Natural Rights to realize that Slavery was a violation of a Natural Right, and that everyone before got it wrong.

I guess they just hadn't gotten the memo from the Creator and Nature.

 

[catsmate]

Now you are disagreeing with the whole point of the Declaration Independence. It argued that rights come from nature, that governments are instituted to secure these rights.

And what has a centuries-old, USAian, document got to do with anything?

Further, you really don't seem to understand the political and social background to the American Revolution; the basis by which people like Henry and the Adams's justified the rebellion against British authority was that the colonists had the same rights as Englishmen (e.g. to be taxed only by their representatives).

And on a practical level such declarations are pointless posturing; the rebellious colonials got to enjoy those rights only because they were able and willing to assert them and exert themselves to hold them.

 

[catsmate]

in an extreme cases maybe. but normally is it not choice between having a homeless person sleep in someone's private property or the life of the homeless person. There are other options there shelters specifically for the needs of the homeless. There are charities. But in extreme cases, extreme solutions may be required.

How about mandatory blood donations? Organ harvesting from living donors?

 

[catsmate]

Apparently, you do not understand the ideas argued in the Declaration of Independence. Please read it. It argues that rights come from nature. That is the whole point of America.

Which is, as has been pointed out, utter nonsense. Your "right to life" will not shop nature killing you in a vast range of ways.

 

[catsmate]

true, but research can be done. background checks an be done. Interviews with the perspective parents can be done. A look at their financial situation can be done. I remember when my brother and his wife when through with their adoption, what they had to go through to get approved was quite extensive.

Why not apply the same rationale for all births? Reversible sterilisation at puberty and mandatory licenses for children.

 

[catsmate]

I was talking about situations where the life of the mother was in danger(more in danger than the normal pregnancy).

To what extent? A 10x increase in chance of death? 20x?

 

[catsmate]

I will allow a legit MD Doctor whom is the Pregnant woman's doctor to determine when it is to risky for the baby to be carried to term.

What a ******* cop-out. You really lack the courage to support you beliefs don't you?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Why not apply the same rationale for all births? Reversible sterilisation at puberty and mandatory licenses for children.

Most boys looking to get laid would love to have the peace of mind that comes from having had a vasectomy.

 

[catsmate]

One person alone, even the mother does not get to decide whether or not the fetus has rights.

And if the woman doesn't want to bear the unwanted child? What do you do then?
Lock her up? Drug her into insensibility? Restrain her for nine months?

 

[catsmate]

in . your . opinion!

I look forward to you demonstrating the courage of your opinions by jumping off a fifty metre building and showing how your "right to life" trumps gravity,


Sigh. To comply with the forum rules wrt advocating suicide this would be a bad thing to do. Gravity would win and you'd be splattered all over the place, requiring others to clean up the mess. Do not jump off high surfaces.

 

[sphenisc]

Which is, as has been pointed out, utter nonsense. Your "right to life" will not shop nature killing you in a vast range of ways.

Nope, it's only going to do it one way.

 

[catsmate]

The declaration says creator, also interpreted as nature, not people.

So what?

 

[catsmate]

but they did in the Declaration. I guarantee you they would support my assertion about the idea that rights come from nature, not governments or a king.

And yet they were preparing to engage in armed insurrection to gain those rights....