And the conclusion to what started this thread
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
And the conclusion to what started this thread
I wouldn’t head for the exit just yet.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
And the conclusion to what started this thread
I wouldn’t head for the exit just yet. [/quote]
Holy Crap:) We agree
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
And the conclusion to what started this thread
I wouldn’t head for the exit just yet. [/quote]
Correct, because we all know it wasn’t really about selling aborted babies. It was about exposing how disgusting and immoral the whole practice is. And for that, the video makers did an excellent job.
When the PP henchwoman picks through a petri dish full of baby parts and exclaims “Another boy!” that drives the point home really well.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
And the conclusion to what started this thread
I wouldn’t head for the exit just yet. [/quote]
Correct, because we all know it wasn’t really about selling aborted babies. It was about exposing how disgusting and immoral the whole practice is. And for that, the video makers did an excellent job.
When the PP henchwoman picks through a petri dish full of baby parts and exclaims “Another boy!” that drives the point home really well. [/quote]
No , we know it was not about disgusting , or immoral , it is about regulating a woman’s hooha
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A natural human right is by definition inherent to a living human. A fetus (or a jew or a black) is a living human. A natural human right means that you don’t get to pick and choose which human lives have value and to reserve the distribution of INHERENT rights only to those you deem valuable. What you are doing is the opposite of HUMAN rights. You need to realize that you do not believe in human rights and the natural INHERENT value of human life. Again, I’m not planing on changing your mind, but some people here seem to be in denial about their own beliefs. You cannot claim to be in favor of assigning/denying rights to living humans based on perceived value AND maintain that you support human rights. For you are granting and denying rights based on societal valuation not the simple criteria of being alive and being human. You are arguing for awarded rights, not inherent ones. And to reiterate, this puts you in intellectual bed with the worst of the worst in human history.
[/quote]
I’m curious what you think about people who support execution of criminals while also opposing abortion on the basis that the child has a fundamental right to life.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The criminal forfeited his/her fundamental right to life when he/she took the fundamental right to life of an innocent person. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
[/quote]
Based on this opinion the right to life is not a natural right. If that’s the case what natural rights are there, if any?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Based on this opinion the right to life is not a natural right. [/quote]
Sure it is.
Look just because other human’s dont’ respect your rights doesn’t mean you don’t have them. They don’t disappear because a government doesn’t protect them. They simply are trampled on and you will have to fight for them.
Rights are, irrespective of other’s actions or government action, they still are. We’ve grown up in a very blessed time in human history where the citizenry has grown so accustomed to having their rights (basically) protected that it is viewed as expected to the point were people take them for granted.
To the point were they are willing to throw away those very same rights.
[quote]Blowharder wrote:
The criminal forfeited his/her fundamental right to life when he/she took the fundamental right to life of an innocent person. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
[/quote]
says who?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Sure it is.
[/quote]
No it’s not,
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The criminal forfeited his/her fundamental right to life when he/she took the fundamental right to life of an innocent person. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
[/quote]
Based on this opinion the right to life is not a natural right.
[/quote]
Tell me why.
The definition of natural right is one that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. When human law says a person is to be executed then those humans are implying its not a natural right.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Blowharder wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Blowharder wrote:
The criminal forfeited his/her fundamental right to life when he/she took the fundamental right to life of an innocent person. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
[/quote]
Based on this opinion the right to life is not a natural right.
[/quote]
Tell me why.
The definition of natural right is one that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. When human law says a person is to be executed then those humans are implying its not a natural right.[/quote]
Come on Andy , we know a differing of opinion can not be tolerated what will the rest of the CJS think:) ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
And the conclusion to what started this thread
I wouldn’t head for the exit just yet. [/quote]
Correct, because we all know it wasn’t really about selling aborted babies. It was about exposing how disgusting and immoral the whole practice is. And for that, the video makers did an excellent job.
When the PP henchwoman picks through a petri dish full of baby parts and exclaims “Another boy!” that drives the point home really well. [/quote]
No , we know it was not about disgusting , or immoral , it is about regulating a woman’s hooha
[/quote]
It just cannot be this hard for you to understand. It cannot be. It has to be willful.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The definition of natural right is one that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. [/quote]
Correct. And they aren’t. They just aren’t respected. Just because person A ignores the rights of Person B, doesn’t mean Person B has no rights, it means that Person B needs to defend themselves.
No, those humans are implying that the punishment for denying/ignoring the rights of another is the loss of you rights being protected.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The definition of natural right is one that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. [/quote]
Correct. And they aren’t. They just aren’t respected. Just because person A ignores the rights of Person B, doesn’t mean Person B has no rights, it means that Person B needs to defend themselves.
No, those humans are implying that the punishment for denying/ignoring the rights of another is the loss of you rights being protected.
[/quote]
So there is nothing wrong with not protecting peoples natural rights, as long as humans have decided those cases via a law or popular vote or something?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So there is nothing wrong with not protecting peoples natural rights, as long as humans have decided those cases via a law or popular vote or something?[/quote]
Now you are getting into morals, which is what you were talking about in the first place. Good to see you come around.
There is a difference between people acting morally or immorally, and natural rights. While the concepts may be related, and in this case are, they are two different things.
If person A ignores Person B’s rights and kills them, are they acting immorally? Yes.
If Person A is put into a position of self defense because Person B is trying to kill Person A, and A kills B are they acting immorally? No. Are both people guilty of ignoring the rights of the other? Yes. However Person A wasn’t given a choice, it was survival, and Person B’s fault for putting Person A in that position.
In neither of the cases do the rights of either individual go away, they are just not respected, acknowledged and or protected. They are still there.
So when talking about Capital Punishment, there are many people who look at it this way “If you are going to have such a total and immoral disregard for the rights of others, we will treat you the same, and disregard your rights as punishment for acting in such a horrific way.”
Whether or not that is a moral or appropriate stance is a matter for a different conversation. What is relevant is unborn baby isn’t guilty of taking away anyone’s rights, while someone on Death Row HAS been convicted of doing so. Comparing the two is a dumb argument.