Realities of Rights

[Chip]

I apologize for my careless leaps of logic with regard to your belief system.

Since the opening post isn't about my "belief system", I won't accept your apology -- I'll merely absolve you.

I am not an accomplished student of philosophy and I appeared to have misused the term "universal truth" as it is used in academia.

Actually, I question the accuracy of the word "misused".

After all, you did attempt to get my attention with your bolding of my name ... perhaps knowing that the perjorative "universal truth" would be understandably offensive.

However, in popular vernacular the term is often used rather pejoratively when speaking about a concept that one person holds to be applicable in every circumstance without exception.

Yes, as I just presented, I know you were being condescending.

But accurate summary algorithms do exist in genre's from science to anthropology to psychology ... and they hold great value for those who wish an accurate grasp of the relevant matter.

Often, however, people find that they are upset when an algorithm of apparent validity contradicts their personal pre-conceived coping ideology, and, rather than consider in presentation detail where they might be in posession of questionable conlusions in their personal belief system, they immediately begin denigrating the algorithm, erroneously projecting in process that said algorithm is a "belief system" in nature to their own.

Stating that the right to life is supported by analyzing historic trends seems wrong. In fact, paleontologist have uncovered evidence that mankind (indeed all spectrum of life) have been intentionally killing each other since life began on earth. More currently, wars and intended killing has been sanctioned by virtually all cultures.

The violation of a right, no matter how prevalent or historic, does not negate the presence of that right -- it merely means the right was violated.

Anthropologists also document that the tiny roughly .0000001 percent of the population who lead tribes and countries throughout history are the ones who whooped up the killing frenzie and ordered their people to war, frequently not in legitimate self-defense but for personal profit.

That's hardly a comment about the majority.

When people do not experience a legitimate threat to their own right to life, they have pretty much historically agreed to live and let live, a substantiation of the foundational right to life.

Though legitimate self-defense is sanctioned by most (cultures), illegitimate self-defense is rightly denigrated (like the murderous thievery of Iraq's oil distribution rights is rightly denigrated by those who grasp the truth of it).

Some people, however, can imagine out of context that the right to life isn't supported by history, and whether they wax revisionist or careless, their denial of the very real and foundational right to life, the right each and every one of us personally hold dear, is usually compelled by and associated with wanting to keep abortion on demand legal and they're afraid that the phrase "the right to life" might one day be applied legally to newly conceived human beings.

It seems my karma ran over your dogma - and I am sorry ,

Actually, it doesn't seem that way at all to me.

It seems more that your preconceived ideology and your stance on abortion ran afoul of my accurate summary presentation of history on the topic matter.

But hey, we could both be wrong here.

but still hold my right as an American to disagree.

A right we all share.

And it we certainly do disagree, there is no doubting that!

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What's more risky, is the pretend that you can mixing together a bunch of other belief systems, when only one can be true.

Did you borrow that Absolute from fundamentalist-Muslums....or, do the two-of-you share ownership?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The purpose of all religions should be to lay out a path to find God.

....While the end-result isn't all-that-much different from a dog chasing-his-tail???

Convincing people there's a proven pay-off would probably help. Good luck, with that.

 

[Hobo1]

Chip - Would you please explain to me, in sufficient detail that I can draw the same conclusions, what data and algorithm to you use to draw the conclusion that the right to life is absolute. How do you use scientific methods to determine what is an absolute right?

 

[Chip]

Chip - Would you please explain to me, in sufficient detail that I can draw the same conclusions, what data and algorithm to you use to draw the conclusion that the right to life is absolute. How do you use scientific methods to determine what is an absolute right?

No ... at least for certain no for now ... though I may be persuaded to try once you accurately and honestly present your position on abortion.

But no matter how much I present to you what is so obvious to those not suffering from a contradictory pre-conceived ideology, you will fail to "draw the conclusion" that an accurate and complete presentation of history makes so very obvious.

As to your "absolute" explanatory requirement, again, the typical utilitarian philsophy you present is that all is absolutely situationally relative ... and thus when things that are absolute or near enough to being absolute that microscopically sized numbers of exceptions are completely irrelevant are presented to exist, you utilitarians go into immediate denial of that reality on "philosophical" grounds.

How do you use scientific methods to determine what is an absolute right?

Your question is irrelevant, and thus no answer can be provided.

The opening post in this thread is not an example of "absolute right".

It is a summary of accurate historic detail with regard to the subject matter.

Your continued use of "absolute right" type loaded words is less about the opening post in this thread ... and more about your utilitarian "philosophy's" opposition to axioms you feel in fear are "too restrictive" on your utilitarian behavior.

 

[Hobo1]

No ... at least for certain no for now ... though I may be persuaded to try once you accurately and honestly present your position on abortion.

But no matter how much I present to you what is so obvious to those not suffering from a contradictory pre-conceived ideology, you will fail to "draw the conclusion" that an accurate and complete presentation of history makes so very obvious.

As to your "absolute" explanatory requirement, again, the typical utilitarian philsophy you present is that all is absolutely situationally relative ... and thus when things that are absolute or near enough to being absolute that microscopically sized numbers of exceptions are completely irrelevant are presented to exist, you utilitarians go into immediate denial of that reality on "philosophical" grounds.



Your question is irrelevant, and thus no answer can be provided.

The opening post in this thread is not an example of "absolute right".

It is a summary of accurate historic detail with regard to the subject matter.

Your continued use of "absolute right" type loaded words is less about the opening post in this thread ... and more about your utilitarian "philosophy's" opposition to axioms you feel in fear are "too restrictive" on your utilitarian behavior.

I am not sure I we can ever get past the problem of defining terms. I hope we can get beyond a psychological analysis of my fears. I will give you my precise position on abortion.

I define "being alive" as a human (see note below) who is able to remain alive (viable) without the need for external physical support systems, and I have no moral obligation to interfere with the fate of a mass or protoplasm (that I consider not to be alive).

To be clear, that means a baby who is out of the womb and all body functions operating properly is alive. A fetus or embryo that cannot exist without the mother's external support system - therefore I have no moral objection to either 1)aborting a baby or 2)not artificially supporting with external equipment a baby whose systems are not functioning properly.

By the same logic, I have no moral objections to withholding life support systems from any human of any age whose natural systems are no longer functioning properly. If a human is functioning normally but needs medical attention - such as a broken leg, or a wound - to not give aid is neglect; I don't support neglect.

Note: The last time I gave that definition, several posters pointed to the need for mother's milk or oxygen to a diver. So I must add that the human is not in an environment normally hostile to life - that would include on the moon or underwater, or neglected.​

I trust that definition is clear enough for you to understand.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No ... at least for certain no for now ... though I may be persuaded to try once you accurately and honestly present your position on abortion.

Ah, yes....the ultimate-distraction!

When a "conservative"-fundamentalist paints themself into-a-corner, it's time to play the ol' abortion-card.

How predictable.

 

[Chip]

Ah, yes....the ultimate-distraction!

When a "conservative"-fundamentalist paints themself into-a-corner, it's time to play the ol' abortion-card.

How predictable.

Translation: "I, Mr. Shaman, do not consider a conception to be a unique individual human being, and I favor abortion on demand."

 

[Chip]

I am not sure I we can ever get past the problem of defining terms.

Yes, as long as everything is utilitarianly situationally relative for you, you will indeed likely find even the most obvious definitions difficult to accept.

I hope we can get beyond a psychological analysis of my fears.

The likelihood of realizing that hope will depend on your behavior, as if you continue to erroneously transfer those and their positions of your past onto me and my mere historical summary, you may indeed hear from me regarding your fears and your obvious psychological transferrence.

I will give you my precise position on abortion.

I define "being alive" as a human (see note below) who is able to remain alive (viable) without the need for external physical support systems, and I have no moral obligation to interfere with the fate of a mass or protoplasm (that I consider not to be alive).

To be clear, that means a baby who is out of the womb and all body functions operating properly is alive. A fetus or embryo that cannot exist without the mother's external support system [is not alive] - therefore I have no moral objection to either 1)aborting a baby or 2)not artificially supporting with external equipment a baby whose systems are not functioning properly.

By the same logic, I have no moral objections to withholding life support systems from any human of any age whose natural systems are no longer functioning properly. If a human is functioning normally but needs medical attention - such as a broken leg, or a wound - to not give aid is neglect; I don't support neglect.

Note: The last time I gave that definition, several posters pointed to the need for mother's milk or oxygen to a diver. So I must add that the human is not in an environment normally hostile to life - that would include on the moon or underwater, or neglected.​

I trust that definition is clear enough for you to understand.

Actually there were a lot of details that I needed to reflect upon and the red above is where I finished your unfinished sentence.

But, in summary, your position on abortion is: you favor abortion on demand.

Yes, that was obvious from your previous posts.

You have your own pre-conceived ideological excuses for so favoring abortion on demand, excuses that conflict with modern state-of-the-art DNA and life science and that violate the true right to life of newly conceived human beings.

Thus it is obvious that you would question anything that incorporates the phrase "the right to life" because you likely fear that if that right is acknowledged by the masses with regard to people in their twenties, then it's only a logical hop skip and a jump from being rightly applied to newly conceived human beings ...

... As well as, understandably, being applied to octogenarians.

Yes, typical of liberals is that they tend to want to lop off human life at the ends, while typical of conservatives is that they want to lop of human life in the middle, both appealing to their specious pre-conceived ideological excuses.

With regard to your justification for abortion on demand, DNA and life science declared beyond rational conjecture a few decades ago that the newly conceived is indeed a complete-chromosomed human being (not of any other species) and that said newly conceived human being (past the stage of (additional) twinning) is a unique individual entity and that this entity meets all of the criteria for being a life form, a living being. Such is high school science text book level material today.

I would rather trust state-of-the-art DNA and life science over idiosyncratic ideological defense mechanisms masquerading as "criteria".

But my point ... is that until you relenquish your preconceived ideological coping mechanisms, you won't be able to accept the reality of the right to life no matter what obviously convincing presentation you read.

The right to life is real for human beings at every stage of life, whether that truth is convenient for you or not.

Your rejection of the right to life has nothing to do with anything about the opening post in this thread other than your pre-conceived rejection of the right to life itself.

Now I've allowed myself to participate in this divertive digression ... but I believe it would be better to return this thread to it's more general presentation of rights and the resolution of rights in conflict.

If you want to specifically continue the matter of the right to life as it applies to pre-natals, feel free to start another thread on that specific topic, and, as time allows, I may discuss the aspects of that matter with you, if you wish.

 

[Hobo1]

But, in summary, your position on abortion is: you favor abortion on demand.

You have your own pre-conceived ideological excuses for so favoring abortion on demand, excuses that conflict with modern state-of-the-art DNA and life science and that violate the true right to life of newly conceived human beings.

With regard to your justification for abortion on demand, DNA and life science declared beyond rational conjecture a few decades ago that the newly conceived is indeed a complete-chromosomed human being (not of any other species) and that said newly conceived human being (past the stage of (additional) twinning) is a unique individual entity and that this entity meets all of the criteria for being a life form, a living being. Such is high school science text book level material today.

I would rather trust state-of-the-art DNA and life science over idiosyncratic ideological defense mechanisms masquerading as "criteria".

But my point ... is that until you relenquish your preconceived ideological coping mechanisms, you won't be able to accept the reality of the right to life no matter what obviously convincing presentation you read.

The right to life is real for human beings at every stage of life, whether that truth is convenient for you or not.

Your rejection of the right to life has nothing to do with anything about the opening post in this thread other than your pre-conceived rejection of the right to life itself.

What?! Here is one of the top paragraphs from your initial post...

There is only one paramount, foundational right: the right to life. This is a state of being right. This right is unalienable, inviolable and absolute, so that only God, who gives this right, can rightly violate this right of another human being.​

The right to life has EVERYTHING to do with the opening post.

Now I've allowed myself to participate in this divertive digression ... but I believe it would be better to return this thread to it's more general presentation of rights and the resolution of rights in conflict.

If you want to specifically continue the matter of the right to life as it applies to pre-natals, feel free to start another thread on that specific topic, and, as time allows, I may discuss the aspects of that matter with you, if you wish.

No I do not wish to start another thread and I am finished posting on this one. You are a goof-ball, plain and simple. You finally reveal your logic as I have highlighted in red. Simply because a mass of protoplasm is a "complete-chromosomed[SIC] human being"... you call it a life?

Every cell in your body has a complete set of human chromosomes. A sperm has a compete set... so are you destroying life by allowing a sperm to die in a used condom? To carry the logic to the extreme - scientists can mix a sperm and a female egg in a petri dish and under the proper conditions create a numerous fertilized embryos that contain everything necessary to develop into a human. Do those petri dish embryos meet your criteria of "one paramount, foundational right: the right to life"? Of course not.

The indisputable fact is your idea that a right that is "unalienable, inviolable and absolute, so that only God, who gives this right, can rightly violate this right of another human being" is nothing more than your lowly opinion, unsupported by any logic.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

I define "being alive" as a human (see note below) who is able to remain alive (viable) without the need for external physical support systems, and I have no moral obligation to interfere with the fate of a mass or protoplasm (that I consider not to be alive).

To be clear, that means a baby who is out of the womb and all body functions operating properly is alive. A fetus or embryo that cannot exist without the mother's external support system - therefore I have no moral objection to either 1)aborting a baby or 2)not artificially supporting with external equipment a baby whose systems are not functioning properly.

By the same logic, I have no moral objections to withholding life support systems from any human of any age whose natural systems are no longer functioning properly. If a human is functioning normally but needs medical attention - such as a broken leg, or a wound - to not give aid is neglect; I don't support neglect.

Very interesting, if not cold, belief system you have there.

Questions. If one you love is hit today by a car and needs surgery to live, would you deny them the help they need? And, why fix broken bones or wounds? You say you don't support neglect, but that is contradictory to your other statement. By denying a newborn comfort of feeding or breathing via medical means (for a time), you are neglecting that newborn and causing them pain. How is it any different?

Clearly, you are not a doctor or one in the medical profession as they have taken an oath to help those to live. Should that oath be done away with? Stem cell research is on the rise and producing a lot of fascinating breakthroughs for people who are ill. This promises to cure many diseases. How do you feel about stem cell research? What about the majority of newborns who must be put under light for a time after birth in order to help them fight jaundice? Deny it, and many would die. Are you for most babies dying within a few days?


Sounds to me like you are fearful of overpopulation, so therefore you condone death to others. Can I ask your age?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Translation: "I, Mr. Shaman, do not consider a conception to be a unique individual human being, and I favor abortion on demand."

That's a new one!! Instead of describing a blob-of-cells a "baby", you folks have resorted to new terminology; a conception.

That's a bit more-clinical....but, at least you're headed in the proper-direction.

 

[BigRob]

That's a new one!! Instead of describing a blob-of-cells a "baby", you folks have resorted to new terminology; a conception.

That's a bit more-clinical....but, at least you're headed in the proper-direction.

"Conception" is a concept, not a term used to describe the result.

 

[Chip]

What?! Here is one of the top paragraphs from your initial post... The right to life has EVERYTHING to do with the opening post.

You might want to re-read what I wrote.

Clearly, I wrote that your rejection of the right to life has nothing to do with the opening post in this thread other than your pre-conceived rejection of the right to life itself.

And indeed that's true.

You reject the right to life because, as I wrote, you are afraid that the right every person holds dear will be one day legally applied to newly conceived human beings.

Thus your rejection of the right to life for post-natals is merely a carry-over from your fear that it will be applied to pre-natals if it is accepted as existing for post-natals.

Your rejection and the reason for it was why you object to the opening post in this thread, and your reason for opposition to the opening post has nothing to do with the substantive presentation of that post -- your rejection of the right to life is all about you and your pre-conceived ideology.

No I do not wish to start another thread and I am finished posting on this one.

That's your choice.

You are a goof-ball, plain and simple.

Your projection is irrelevant.

You finally reveal your logic as I have highlighted in red. Simply because a mass of protoplasm is a "complete-chromosomed[SIC] human being"... you call it a life?

DNA and life scientists call the newly conceived human being a living being.

Your beef is with them.

Every cell in your body has a complete set of human chromosomes. A sperm has a compete set... so are you destroying life by allowing a sperm to die in a used condom?

Irrelevant.

A cell of my body is not a human being.

A newly conceived human with a unique set of complete human chromosomes that differ from mine is a human being.

So say DNA and life science, beyond rational conjecture.

To carry the logic to the extreme - scientists can mix a sperm and a female egg in a petri dish and under the proper conditions create a numerous fertilized embryos that contain everything necessary to develop into a human.

You are close ... but you are in error on one major key point: that fertilized embryo, as you purposely demeaningly belittle it, is a human being that has already thereby developed into one.

Do those petri dish embryos meet your criteria of "one paramount, foundational right: the right to life"? Of course not.

And your errors just keep on coming.

Of course, yes, by virtue of those "petri dish embryos", as you belittle them demeaningly, being unique individual human beings in their earliest stage of being a unique individual human being, and that very fact means that they are rightly endowed with the foundational paramount right to life.

The indisputable fact is your idea that a right that is "unalienable, inviolable and absolute, so that only God, who gives this right, can rightly violate this right of another human being" is nothing more than your lowly opinion, unsupported by any logic.

So is that also true for the right to freedom?

I thought not. ...

Once again, the context of your entire post reveals that you just don't want to give up abortion on demand, and thus you seem to think you need to slay the entire opening post's accurate summary of historic detail with regard to the reality of rights in order to protect abortion on demand.

Bad try.

But, since you won't be posting in this thread any more, hopefully we can now get back to discussing the reality of rights more in general, perhaps staying out of the womb and focusing more on post-natals where we are all more likely to relate and find common ground for a discussion about rights and the resolution of rights in conflict.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"Conception" is a concept, not a term used to describe the result.

Ya' might wanna correct Webster, on that one......right after connecting Chip, on his concept.

You surely do seem to enjoy splitting-hairs.