What's new
By:

A Place for Conservatives

fishonjazz said:
Well I'm trying to ask you what that particular sentence means. You or anyone.
I will ask again.
If the Constitution didn't say right to life then do you think we would all be arrested for living without it saying we have the right to? Do you think murder would be legalized?

In terms of the original discussion which was about abortion, it currently says right to life in the Constitution yet the supreme Court said it's ok to terminate life via abortion. Which is my point. That sentence in the Constitution doesn't mean anything. If it didn't exist then what would change? (That's another question I asked that you and no one else has answered)

You and I haven't really disagreed on anything yet since you haven't told me what the right to life actually means/does to/for you.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
You are confusing rights with laws. Rights are generally the basis for laws. But the definition of Rights is a long running source of disagreement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

To me a right represents something that is part of individual freedom. Meaning I have a right to something that morally cannot be impinged. it isn't directly correlated to laws but it generally is the foundation of laws. Right to life means that I have the right to live, without anyone impinging on that right. Generally rights are tied to protecting individual freedom. The point of it in the Constitution was to establish that our government cannot impinge in these rights, then it goes on to set up the framework of what that means and to guide or legal code.

In some places, specifically under tyrants, there is no specific right to life imbued, and the state will do what they want to do, because they right is not clearly defined or protected.

And generally that's the way rights are viewed. That they are states or conditions that need to be protected through the laws of that society. Not that they are codified in law in and of themselves.
 
LogGrad98 said:
You are confusing rights with laws. Rights are generally the basis for laws. But the definition of Rights is a long running source of disagreement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

To me a right represents something that is part of individual freedom. Meaning I have a right to something that morally cannot be impinged. it isn't directly correlated to laws but it generally is the foundation of laws. Right to life means that I have the right to live, without anyone impinging on that right. Generally rights are tied to protecting individual freedom. The point of it in the Constitution was to establish that our government cannot impinge in these rights, then it goes on to set up the framework of what that means and to guide or legal code.

In some places, specifically under tyrants, there is no specific right to life imbued, and the state will do what they want to do, because they right is not clearly defined or protected.

And generally that's the way rights are viewed. That they are states or conditions that need to be protected through the laws of that society. Not that they are codified in law in and of themselves.
Click to expand...
So I guess my last 2 questions to you would be:
If the declaration of Independence didn't say that you have a right to life do you think (I'm asking your opinion here) that we would all be in danger if being murdered due to not having that written in the declaration of Independence? Do you think that everyone in a country without a declaration of Independence stating that their citizens have a right to life are in danger of being murdered due to that statement not being written in a declaration of Independence?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
So I guess my last 2 questions to you would be:
If the declaration of Independence didn't say that you have a right to life do you think (I'm asking your opinion here) that we would all be in danger if being murdered due to not having that written in the declaration of Independence? Do you think that everyone in a country without a declaration of Independence stating that their citizens have a right to life are in danger of being murdered due to that statement not being written in a declaration of Independence?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
To me it comes down to why they felt the need to put the concept out there in the first place. I think they wouldn't have felt the need to mention it if that weren't a real possibility. Look at Saddam and rawanda to see what happens when a society doesn't view that right as important.

But in the end it isn't about codifying it explicit. It's about the values expressed in that society. and that value was important enough to call it out when demanding Independence. So it was of obvious concern. The fact this is even a topic of debate shows the difference between living in a society where that is a foundational value and one where it isn't.
 
Heathme said:
Aaah Bulletproof. You're just so smart. How does it feel to be humorless, d-bag all the time?

I will keep pointing out media hypocrisy and the ridiculousness of the left's doomsday predictions as long as I want.
Click to expand...

@Bulletproof is a damn good dude with plenty of humor. Just sayin
 
When the constitution was written, the "rights" you are talking about did not apply to all the human beings alive at the time (blacks and other minorities, women, etc). I don't think it is a realistic argument to use in declaring rights for the unborn.

Abortion is the law of the land. And I see no evidence that it will ever be anything else. IMO, Republicans aren't willing to change it because it is such a valuable tool in keeping people members of their party. I'm sure you all know people who are Republicans only because of abortion and/or gun rights. All of the handwringing about abortion is futile (except to keep the masses fired up), and all of the unconstitutional laws that states keep trying to pass are a waste of time and money. And then there is this resolution passed in Riverton, Utah last night:

https://www.ksl.com/article/4654793...ution-detractors-say-city-council-overstepped

Heated debate surrounded a controversial anti-abortion resolution passed Tuesday by the Riverton City Council and met by a long standing ovation by many in attendance.

The resolution, formally titled "Resolution in Support of Human Life," declared the City Council believed life starts at conception, that "human life, including the unborn, must always be valued and protected," and that the council formally opposed reducing existing restrictions on abortion.

The document, which has no legal bearing but simply states the council's stance on abortion, had religious overtones, explaining the council believes "every human life is unique and precious to God and humankind."
Click to expand...

Apparently Riverton is in such good shape as a city that they have nothing else to do with their city council meetings. This useless resolution made some people feel good and accomplished absolutely nothing. It is once again a violation of keeping religion out of politics. What would be valuable is expanding sex education in schools, making birth control easy and cheap, and other such measures that are proven to reduce the number of abortions.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Simple as that. I don't think it is a choice I would have ever made except under extraordinary circumstances, but I do not believe that anyone should force another woman to make the same choice.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Yes but the reverse isnt true.

Your angle on this is one of the most bizarre arguments I've read on here. You must have been vaccinated too much and had your ears docked at birth, after they didnt give you a birth certificate of course.
Click to expand...
My angle is a simple one. Having a statement in the declaration of Independence that says that everyone has a right to life doesn't actually do or mean anything.
I think that is inarguable. If that wasn't in there we would still go on living and murder would stay illegal. Just like in many other countries without a declaration of Independence.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
My angle is a simple one. Having a statement in the declaration of Independence that says that everyone has a right to life doesn't actually do or mean anything.
I think that is inarguable. If that wasn't in there we would still go on living and murder would stay illegal. Just like in many other countries without a declaration of Independence.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

It's a system of beliefs. Why do you believe murder should be illegal?

I found your line of rights being non-existent because there isn't some supernatural power assuring you stay alive quite bizarre.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
It's a system of beliefs. Why do you believe murder should be illegal?

I found your line of rights being non-existent because there isn't some supernatural power assuring you stay alive quite bizarre.
Click to expand...
Nah it's more like I look at other people in other countries and they live and murder is no bueno. Even without a declaration of the right to life. Cause it's kind of a given in most places. Like it's kind of a given that murder would be illegal

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
Nah it's more like I look at other people in other countries and they live and murder is no bueno. Even without a declaration of the right to life. Cause it's kind of a given in most places. Like it's kind of a given that murder would be illegal

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

We can call it a given instead of a right, doesnt make much of a difference to me. We have a given to live.
 
Just to clarify though since you keep mentioning European constitutions, they all arose out of the same Magna Carta beliefs in rights or freedoms or givens. As did ours.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Just to clarify though since you keep mentioning European constitutions, they all arose out of the same Magna Carta beliefs in rights or freedoms or givens. As did ours.
Click to expand...
So cool
(I never mentioned Europe though)

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
The answer to question #1 is obviously no. A baby doesn't have rights. Even a baby that has been born. Hell my daughter is almost 3 and she has no rights at all. She does what her parents tell her/allow her to do. She eats what we want her to. Sleeps when we say so. Can't vote, can't drink alcohol, can't see any movies or watch shows that we don't allow her to.
She has no rights at all.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
She has tons of rights. She has a right to breathe air. She has a right to eat food (which she is not required to prepare or pay for herself). She has a right to be treated kindly. She has the right to cry. She has the right to laugh. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Also, if she really is eating, sleeping and doing everything else just the way you want then you should consider yourself lucky... and inexperienced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top