Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!

[Immanuel Can]

I'm no expert on rights, but I think it is only unalienable rights that are unalienable. Bog standard rights can be given...

If they can be given and taken away at will, then in what sense are they your "right" at all?

We are obviously talking about different things.

Yes, I think that's true. I think you've maybe never really given much thought to what a "right" would have to be, so you have an idea that they can just be declared by human fiat. Locke didn't think they could. I don't think they can. And nobody can invent a rationale that cogently explains what a "right" is, if somebody, or somebody's society, can simply 'give' one and then take it away with the other hand.

I am talking about the kind of rights that enable me to actually do something in a practical sense, such as vote in an election, or demand medical treatment.

Those are privileges, actually. People do you use the term "right" for them, but they are not "natural rights." Nothing in nature guarantees one a "right" to vote, to get medical treatment, to a living wage, to an education, or to anything else of that sort. About those things, you are right -- the State bestows them, and the State takes them away. But they aren't actually "rights." They're bestowments.

Think about how differently the language of "natural rights" is employed. In the American situation, for example, the "rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were asserted AGAINST the State, that is, the regnant State run by George III. The cry for "justice" embodied in the Declaration of Independence is not a State-based one, but rather a protest that the larger law of God was being offended by George's taxation and authoritarianism. He was guilty, the Americans claimed, of offending against rights that were "inalienable" and "endowed by his Creator." So George was in the moral shade, and the Americans were (they asserted) within their moral rights to overthrow that tyrannical authority.

A similar appeal was made by Civil Rights leaders. The State, the law as it stood, made black men chattels of their owners. The State made women property of their men, too. If the Civil Rights activists had been depending on the State to bestow them the vote, they'd never have gotten it. But they appealed to a higher law, what they perceived as the "natural law," the "law" God has written into the order of things, to assert their "rights" to enfranchisement, over and against a State that was determined that these natural rights should be denied.

In both cases, it was the concept of "natural rights" that eventually triumphed over the authoritarian pronouncements of the State. "Natural rights" gave the protesters the legitimacy and unity of purpose that empowered the social action that led to their liberation. Without that incentive, we'd likely still have slaves today, and enfranchisement wouldn't even be a dream.

I think you are talking about the same kind of rights that henry talks about; the kind that you somehow intuitively believe you should have. Sort of notional moral rights.

Not "notional." Natural. They're called "natural rights." They're the rights ever person has by virtue of being a human being. They cannot be legitimately "alienated" from us, because they inhere in what God has made us to be, just as Locke showed. And the State has no jurisdiction sufficient to legitimately countermand them, because the State is a mere by-product of human beings.

[Harbal]

the same kind of rights that henry talks about; the kind that you somehow intuitively believe you should have.

Nope. You know you have.

Yes, henry, you put it your way, and I'll put it mine.

[Immanuel Can]

Since Harbal won't play anymore, I ask again, of anyone...

When do you believe the cluster or mass of human cells in a woman's womb becomes a person?

Some say: at conception.

Some say: at the end of the first trimester.

Some say: at birth.

Some say: when a society bestows person-status.

What do you say?

I say that the burden to prove it is entirely on the aborters' plate.

Why do I say that?

Simple: because I'm not going to kill anybody. They want to. So it's they who have to justify their position, and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they are not murdering a human being. I don't have to raise a finger to show I know when a baby becomes a "person", because I'm not even potentially advocating anything immoral.

But they are. They are, at least potentially, subborning murder.

[henry quirk]

Yes, henry, you put it your way, and I'll put it mine.

Yes, I'll continue to be right and you'll continue to be, well, you know....

[henry quirk]

I say that the burden to prove it is entirely on the aborters' plate.

Me, I'm not lookin' for anyone to prove anything. I just wanna know when folks in this conversation (any who care to answer) believe the mass of human cells in a woman's womb becomes a person.

[seeds]

I say that the burden to prove it is entirely on the aborters' plate.

Me, I'm not lookin' for anyone to prove anything. I just wanna know when folks in this conversation (any who care to answer) believe the mass of human cells in a woman's womb becomes a person.

At birth.

And the main reason I oppose abortion (except under dire conditions) is based on my cosmic vision of reality, and that if everyone truly understood the vast and eternal potential of what it is they are aborting, and what the gift of human life truly entails, it might change some attitudes.
_______

[Harbal]

If they can be given and taken away at will, then in what sense are they your "right" at all?

We are obviously talking about different things.

Yes, I think that's true. I think you've maybe never really given much thought to what a "right" would have to be, so you have an idea that they can just be declared by human fiat.

I found this definition: "A right is a fundamental normative rule about what is allowed or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory." This definition is in line with my own definition of what a right is, so, when I talk about rights, this is what I am referring to. As with most of what we seem to end up arguing about, your habit of customising word definitions to your own taste is throwing a spanner in the works.

I don't think they can. And nobody can invent a rationale that cogently explains what a "right" is, if somebody, or somebody's society, can simply 'give' one and then take it away with the other hand.

Well if it can just be taken away on someone's whim, then I agree it wouldn't be much of a right.

I am talking about the kind of rights that enable me to actually do something in a practical sense, such as vote in an election, or demand medical treatment.

Those are privileges,

No, a privilege actually is something that can be taken away on a whim, things like my right to vote, and my right to free medical treatment, would require some kind of formal legal process to be enacted before they could be removed.

People do you use the term "right" for them, but they are not "natural rights.

Legal rights are the only rights that have any relevance to me, natural rights are not worth the thin air they are written in. What protection does a natural right give you against anything?

Nothing in nature guarantees one a "right" to vote, to get medical treatment, to a living wage, to an education, or to anything else of that sort. About those things, you are right -- the State bestows them, and the State takes them away. But they aren't actually "rights." They're bestowments.

Okay, you call them bestowments, if you like, while the rest of us carry on calling them rights.

Think about how differently the language of "natural rights" is employed. In the American situation, for example, the "rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were asserted AGAINST the State, that is, the regnant State run by George III. The cry for "justice" embodied in the Declaration of Independence is not a State-based one, but rather a protest that the larger law of God was being offended by George's taxation and authoritarianism. He was guilty, the Americans claimed, of offending against rights that were "inalienable" and "endowed by his Creator." So George was in the moral shade, and the Americans were (they asserted) within their moral rights to overthrow that tyrannical authority.

Surely you are not saying that America didn't bother with legal rights after the War of Independence, and just made do with "natural rights", are you?

A similar appeal was made by Civil Rights leaders. The State, the law as it stood, made black men chattels of their owners. The State made women property of their men, too. If the Civil Rights activists had been depending on the State to bestow them the vote, they'd never have gotten it. But they appealed to a higher law, what they perceived as the "natural law," the "law" God has written into the order of things, to assert their "rights" to enfranchisement, over and against a State that was determined that these natural rights should be denied.

Yes, many of our rights are based on what we might call natural justice, but they still have to be enshrined in civil law before they have any weight behind them. If someone tried to deny you access to your rightful property, would you make an appeal to the law, or say a prayer?

In both cases, it was the concept of "natural rights" that eventually triumphed over the authoritarian pronouncements of the State. "Natural rights" gave the protesters the legitimacy and unity of purpose that empowered the social action that led to their liberation. Without that incentive, we'd likely still have slaves today, and enfranchisement wouldn't even be a dream.

Yes, I have a sense of natural justice, so I understand that, but I'll say it again; natural justice (or natural rights, if you prefer) is useless without the authority of the law behind it.

I think you are talking about the same kind of rights that henry talks about; the kind that you somehow intuitively believe you should have. Sort of notional moral rights.

Not "notional." Natural. They're called "natural rights."

Yes, "natural rights" is the name for them, notional rights is a description of them.

They're the rights ever person has by virtue of being a human being. They cannot be legitimately "alienated" from us, because they inhere in what God has made us to be

It would be fine if everyone agreed with that assertion, but what happens when they don't? And even if I believed it, what good would it do me? Knowing someone will be punished for infringing my natural rights after they die might be a gratifying thought, but how does it help me here and now?

just as Locke showed.

You keep mentioning Locke, and while it does make a refreshing change from Nietzsche, my disinterest in both their opinions is much the same.

And the State has no jurisdiction sufficient to legitimately countermand them, because the State is a mere by-product of human beings.

I am a human being, living among human beings, so a human perspective is the appropriate one.

[LuckyR]

I say that the burden to prove it is entirely on the aborters' plate.

Me, I'm not lookin' for anyone to prove anything. I just wanna know when folks in this conversation (any who care to answer) believe the mass of human cells in a woman's womb becomes a person.

At birth.

And the main reason I oppose abortion (except under dire conditions) is based on my cosmic vision of reality, and that if everyone truly understood the vast and eternal potential of what it is they are aborting, and what the gift of human life truly entails, it might change some attitudes.
_______

Huh? You "oppose abortion, except..."?

Firstly, no one is "in favor of abortion". That's like saying I'm "in favor" of everyone having open heart surgery. Rather, folks are "in favor" of open heart surgery being safe, legal and available to those who, in consultation with their health care professionals, determine that open heart surgery is in their best interest.

I'm assuming that since there are exceptions to your opposition, that you propose that abortion should not be illegal.

[Immanuel Can]

We are obviously talking about different things.

Yes, I think that's true. I think you've maybe never really given much thought to what a "right" would have to be, so you have an idea that they can just be declared by human fiat.

I found this definition: "A right is a fundamental normative rule about what is allowed or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory." This definition is in line with my own definition of what a right is, so, when I talk about rights, this is what I am referring to.

Yes, I see that you are. I also think that definition isn't very good.

I don't think they can. And nobody can invent a rationale that cogently explains what a "right" is, if somebody, or somebody's society, can simply 'give' one and then take it away with the other hand.

Well if it can just be taken away on someone's whim, then I agree it wouldn't be much of a right.

All State-given rights are of just that kind. The State issues them whenever it wants, and to whatever it wants; and it takes them away just as fast. Nothing can be asserted against the State from that point of view, because "the buck stops" with the State.

I am talking about the kind of rights that enable me to actually do something in a practical sense, such as vote in an election, or demand medical treatment.

Those are privileges,

No, a privilege actually is something that can be taken away on a whim,...

Your right to vote or get medical treatment can be denied you in the next ten seconds, if the State changes its mind.

People do you use the term "right" for them, but they are not "natural rights.

Legal rights are the only rights that have any relevance to me, natural rights are not worth the thin air they are written in. What protection does a natural right give you against anything?

Ask women who have the vote. Ask slaves who have been freed. Ask anybody who has been able to say something somebody else didn't want to hear, or to dispose of his own property in a way he saw fit. They all know the answer to that.

Nothing in nature guarantees one a "right" to vote, to get medical treatment, to a living wage, to an education, or to anything else of that sort. About those things, you are right -- the State bestows them, and the State takes them away. But they aren't actually "rights." They're bestowments.

Okay, you call them bestowments, if you like, while the rest of us carry on calling them rights.

Except "the rest of us" is really only you and a few others who don't really realize what a "right" has to be.

Think about how differently the language of "natural rights" is employed. In the American situation, for example, the "rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were asserted AGAINST the State, that is, the regnant State run by George III. The cry for "justice" embodied in the Declaration of Independence is not a State-based one, but rather a protest that the larger law of God was being offended by George's taxation and authoritarianism. He was guilty, the Americans claimed, of offending against rights that were "inalienable" and "endowed by his Creator." So George was in the moral shade, and the Americans were (they asserted) within their moral rights to overthrow that tyrannical authority.

Surely you are not saying that America didn't bother with legal rights after the War of Independence, and just made do with "natural rights", are you?

Nothing like that. They still had legal bestowments of many kinds. But they didn't actually have natural right to any of them. For example, the Constitution gave them a basis to demand to remain allowed have a gun. That's not a natural right.

Similarly, a "right" to abort a baby is not a natural entitlement, even if the government gives it. One might say it's an "unnatural wrong," but it has no basis in rights.

A similar appeal was made by Civil Rights leaders. The State, the law as it stood, made black men chattels of their owners. The State made women property of their men, too. If the Civil Rights activists had been depending on the State to bestow them the vote, they'd never have gotten it. But they appealed to a higher law, what they perceived as the "natural law," the "law" God has written into the order of things, to assert their "rights" to enfranchisement, over and against a State that was determined that these natural rights should be denied.

Yes, many of our rights are based on what we might call natural justice, but they still have to be enshrined in civil law before they have any weight behind them.

That's a different issue. The question you're raising is whether or not the State is acting morally. Often, it isn't. But the moral failures of the State, such as State sponsorship of slavery, does not vacate natural rights: black persons deserve to be free and equal. When the State rules otherwise, the State has become evil. But rightness, justice and fairness are on the side of the oppressed persons, not the State.

Don't mistake power for right. They're two very different issues.

In both cases, it was the concept of "natural rights" that eventually triumphed over the authoritarian pronouncements of the State. "Natural rights" gave the protesters the legitimacy and unity of purpose that empowered the social action that led to their liberation. Without that incentive, we'd likely still have slaves today, and enfranchisement wouldn't even be a dream.

Yes, I have a sense of natural justice, so I understand that, but I'll say it again; natural justice (or natural rights, if you prefer) is useless without the authority of the law behind it.

It wasn't at all useless to the suffragettes, nor to the Civil Rights marchers. And if, one day, Arab and other women and children are liberated from Islamic tyranny, or the Chinese are freed from their tyrannical overlords, it will be through people who respond to the appeal to natural rights, not to what Islamists or Chinese mandate in their States.

Appeals to State authority "rights" will never free them. So whose side are you going to be on?

They're the rights ever person has by virtue of being a human being. They cannot be legitimately "alienated" from us, because they inhere in what God has made us to be

It would be fine if everyone agreed with that assertion, but what happens when they don't?

We know exactly what happens then. They act immorally, doing things like depriving people of their God-given rights, and murdering babies. That makes them evil; it does not make natural rights go away.

...how does it help me here and now?

Again, ask the freed slaves how natural rights helped them.

just as Locke showed.

You keep mentioning Locke, and while it does make a refreshing change from Nietzsche, my disinterest in both their opinions is much the same.

That's to your very great loss. You are denying yourself access to the whole wealth of conversation on these issues, and not really engaging the relevant philosophy. But I can't convince you to inform yourself on them, I suppose?

[henry quirk]

When, in the womb, does personhood begin?

Hell if I know (gotta be well before birth, though. Certainly personhood begins no later than the end of the 12th week and probably well before that).

So: I prefer to err on the side of safety and accept conception as a person's beginning.

[Harbal]

I found this definition: "A right is a fundamental normative rule about what is allowed or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory." This definition is in line with my own definition of what a right is, so, when I talk about rights, this is what I am referring to.[/quote]
Yes, I see that you are. I also think that definition isn't very good.[/quote]
No problem, just substitute one that you prefer, like you usually do.

No, a privilege actually is something that can be taken away on a whim,...

Your right to vote or get medical treatment can be denied you in the next ten seconds, if the State changes its mind.

That is incorrect. The procedure necessary to remove those rights would be quite a lengthy process. And, in the meantime, they would still be rights, right up to the point of their removal.

Legal rights are the only rights that have any relevance to me, natural rights are not worth the thin air they are written in. What protection does a natural right give you against anything?

Ask women who have the vote. Ask slaves who have been freed. Ask anybody who has been able to say something somebody else didn't want to hear, or to dispose of his own property in a way he saw fit. They all know the answer to that.

Ask them which they appreciate having the most, their natural rights, or their legal rights, you mean? As you say, they will all know the answer to that.

Okay, you call them bestowments, if you like, while the rest of us carry on calling them rights.

Except "the rest of us" is really only you and a few others who don't really realize what a "right" has to be.

So when most people talk about their rights, you think they are referring to the ones they are entitled to under God, rather than under the law?

Surely you are not saying that America didn't bother with legal rights after the War of Independence, and just made do with "natural rights", are you?

Nothing like that. They still had legal bestowments of many kinds. But they didn't actually have natural right to any of them. For example, the Constitution gave them a basis to demand to remain allowed have a gun. That's not a natural right.

I'm sure that many Americans believe they have a God given right to own a gun, but it is a legal right that actually allows them to have one.

Similarly, a "right" to abort a baby is not a natural entitlement,

Just out of interest, where might one find the official list of natural entitlements and rights?

Yes, many of our rights are based on what we might call natural justice, but they still have to be enshrined in civil law before they have any weight behind them.

That's a different issue. The question you're raising is whether or not the State is acting morally.

I'm not raising a question at all, but if I were, that wouldn't be it. I am just stating the fact that to be of any use, a right has to be backed by law.

But the moral failures of the State, such as State sponsorship of slavery, does not vacate natural rights: black persons deserve to be free and equal. When the State rules otherwise, the State has become evil. But rightness, justice and fairness are on the side of the oppressed persons, not the State.

Nevertheless, it was the legal system that freed the slaves, not God, or nature. The fact that it was the legal system that allowed slavery in the first place is a regrettable truth, and a reminder that it is human beings that are running the show, not a fair and compassionate god.

Don't mistake power for right. They're two very different issues.

I am not mistaking anything for anything. I am just stating the obvious fact that in order to be of any use, rights have to be backed by the authority (power) of the state.

Yes, I have a sense of natural justice, so I understand that, but I'll say it again; natural justice (or natural rights, if you prefer) is useless without the authority of the law behind it.

It wasn't at all useless to the suffragettes, nor to the Civil Rights marchers. And if, one day, Arab and other women and children are liberated from Islamic tyranny, or the Chinese are freed from their tyrannical overlords, it will be through people who respond to the appeal to natural rights, not to what Islamists or Chinese mandate in their States.

Appeals to State authority "rights" will never free them. So whose side are you going to be on?

Their appeal to natural justice might have been the persuasive factor in women gaining the right to vote, but it was the right given to them by the law/state that actually enabled them to vote.

It would be fine if everyone agreed with that assertion, but what happens when they don't?

We know exactly what happens then. They act immorally, doing things like depriving people of their God-given rights, and murdering babies. That makes them evil; it does not make natural rights go away.

Meanwhile, we all end up with rights that we can't do anything with.

...how does it help me here and now?

Again, ask the freed slaves how natural rights helped them.

They would probably say they helped them to get the legal rights they wanted, eventually. I won't ask them how their natural rights helped them to avoid being put into slavery in the first place.

You keep mentioning Locke, and while it does make a refreshing change from Nietzsche, my disinterest in both their opinions is much the same.

That's to your very great loss. You are denying yourself access to the whole wealth of conversation on these issues, and not really engaging the relevant philosophy. But I can't convince you to inform yourself on them, I suppose?

It is highly unlikely that reading Locke would cause me to start agreeing with you, so you probably have nothing to gain by convincing me.

[Harbal]

When, in the womb, does personhood begin?

Hell if I know (gotta be well before birth, though. Certainly personhood begins no later than the end of the 12th week and probably well before that).

So: I prefer to err on the side of safety and accept conception as a person's beginning.

You can call a tiny cluster of cells whatever you like, but as IC keeps reminding us, that won't change what it is, which, in this case, is a tiny cluster of cells.

[henry quirk]

Your opinion is pretty much worthless, in context.

You deny personhood. You deny objective morality. You deny the moral claim one has on himself.

By your own measure: offing a human being is neither good or bad, right or wrong.

Sure, you don't like [insert topic of your choice] but, to you, by your own measure, it's just a preference, just a feeling. If today you feel rape is wrong, great; and if tomorrow you feel rape is a-ok, great.

Worst of all: you aspire to nuthin'. You are content to be rudderless, amoral, to go along to get along.

But hey, you do you. If snappy comebacks and snark is your meat, have at it.

As for me: I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.

[Harbal]

Your opinion is pretty much worthless, in context.

You deny personhood. You deny objective morality. You deny the moral claim one has on himself.

By your own measure: offing a human being is neither good or bad, right or wrong.

Sure, you don't like [insert topic of your choice] but, to you, by your own measure, it's just a preference, just a feeling. If today you feel rape is wrong, great; and if tomorrow you feel rape is a-ok, great.

Worst of all: you aspire to nuthin'. You are content to be rudderless, amoral, to go along to get along.

But hey, you do you. If snappy comebacks and snark is your meat, have at it.

As for me: I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.

You complained about my behaviour towards you, henry, and I toned it down. There was nothing "snarky" about my last few replies to you.

[henry quirk]

There was nothing "snarky" about my last few replies to you.

Your snark wasn't what my last post was about.