Debate your own words:
“We,” in the 18th Century, had a right to own people. “We” in Nazi Germany had a right to commit genocide. “We” have a right to rape women, until caught and punished by a more powerful entity.
I wasn’t really talking about you, since you’re just a troll. I was talking about anyone that believes(I have no idea what you believe…see previous sentence for clarification) there are no inherent human rights.
I could be wrong but it would seem he is saying that what those rights mean is determined by society?
Ask people what our rights are as humans and you will get a lot of different answers. But I apologize in advance if I misunderstood his or your point.
That’s the way it seemed to me as well. Nazi Germany society determined a right to commit genocide. 18th Century Americans had a right to enslave others.
Which shows that rights vary by place and time. Therefore, if rights are inherent, they are also inherently mutable.
Ask an ancient Greek and ancient Persian about democracy and you’ll get two different answers about what kind of government is inherently correct.
And German society did not determine it had the right to commit genocide. That’s a simplistic way of looking at how it really developed.
On what ancient stone are these rights carved in? Who gave us these rights? Nature? The same nature that would allow a lion to eat me?
Is it the Bible? A book that is full of what we today would consider crimes against humanity?
Just because I don’t believe in inherent rights doesn’t mean I don’t believe we shouldn’t have rights. I believe that people should be treated with a certain amount of dignity and compassion and have a certain amount of personal liberty.
But what I think are appropriate amounts might not be the same as what someone somewhere else thinks or what someone 500 years ago thought or 500 years from now will think.
No one. I actually agree with you that they change over time and their definitions are determined by the people at the time. I also think it’s somewhat silly as they can all be violated and ignored at any time.
A good example is the French Revolution. They created a great list of rights that every citizen was supposed to have and then promptly ignored them. At that moment they ceased to exist in a practical sense.
That’s not to say I don’t agree with humans having certain rights now and the spirit of what they stand for. However they are completely open to interpretation and have been for as long as societies exist. And they won’t do anything special should society choose to ignore them.
We have had this debate on this forum before and I know where it goes down.
I mean hell this country was founded saying all people have these certain rights. And then they promptly ignored them for most of their population.
Then I won’t recognize a right to abortion or to marriage. Further, they concede I have no moral obligation to embrace them. If it’s just your opinion with no basis outside of your desires, I’m not obligated by reason nor moral grounds to adopt your positions. Positions you already admit to only viewing as transient and mutable subjective fancies.
No point arguing then. Good day.
And then I guess mistakenly believed they were trespassing on the right to liberty. Had they only realized no such thing was happening the rights of African slaves would never have been trespassed upon because there aren’t rights to trespass upon. Rights only existed when whites deemed it time to give them rights. If blacks then thought their rights were ignored, they were so very wrong. Up until then there was no moral obligation to recognize their rights as they were completely nonexistent. The white man had yet to allow them rights. No foul, prior. Had only the abolitionists realized they could have all just gone home.
Yeah, build a long term society on that.
You wouldn’t do this regardless of what was said. You don’t think abortion or think gay marriage should be legal.
Anyone in this thread calling them a right wouldn’t change your mind. Which is perfectly ok with me for what it’s worth. I mean I may argue you shouldn’t have a certain view but it doesn’t change anything.
You will have your beliefs regardless of what society says is a right and how that’s interpreted. Which is ok.
All men are created equal and they have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This was ignored and having that on a piece of paper or saying it didn’t change that fact in the least bit.
How exactly did that help slaves at the time?
I think people should have the right to health care but others do not. If we said it was a right and kept things the exact same as now what changes? Again that was a flowery statement at the time which didn’t amount to jack shit for slaves.
And it’s not like people agree on what rights are either. A simple google search will show you tons of things people think should or shouldn’t be rights. And then the interpretation of those rights is important if we even say they exist.
Moral obligation? People used the Bible to justify slavery.
And I’m not saying we shouldn’t have rights merely that they are only as good as societies actions and interpretations of them. At least in a practical sense which is what I like focusing on.
I’m sure slaves loved having pieces of paper that gave them rights though. They were probably like “hey this sucks being a slave but at least we have all these rights written down.” Oh shit this guys whipping the fuck out of me but I got rights!
You seem to be confused. Rights are protected by the law. You can disagree all you want with a right but if you break the law in the course of doing so, then you suffer the legal consequences.
The law has encroached on rights probably since the invention of the law and what rights mean in the sense of the times. If the law says it’s illegal to get an abortion then it’s illegal. I would assume some would work to get something like roe v wade back just as people have worked to overturn it. That’s just how it works. I mean most of the arguments with this center around what rights mean what. Some people saying the fetus has a “right” to life which should be protected and some saying the mother has a “right” to liberty which means she can control her body which should be protected.
I would hope that the movement would turn to trying to reduce the chances that a woman gets an illegal abortion. And I think I’ve pointed out many times how we can do that. It also has the bonus of reducing the amount of unwanted children which would be a bonus regardless of the legality of abortion.
People can claim they have a right to whatever they want. And as I’ve said that has changed many times and will continue to change. It hasn’t been that long that people have had a right to a free and equal public education.
Was hoping for a yes or no.
I can see you are trying to set up a gotcha moment with that question but you worded it wrong.
Anyway, I would answer no. One can always claim to have a right. That’s how rights come and go.
Thanks. Not the best day for me to continue this. Take care.
That’s not really how our system works though. If it worked like your example we wouldn’t be having this debate in the first place because after Roe was passed pro lifers wouldn’t be able to say anything about it.
Women could claim whatever they want and work to change a decision. Yes or no doesn’t fit how our country operates on these things.
It was an attempted trick question.
If you had answered no (which was the expectation), then the response would have been that you must therefore believe in inherent rights. It’s Ben Shapiro level debate tactics which only work on undergrads.
That’s not a trick question. And not the angle I was going with, really.
In that case, it would be justifiable homicide, but still [quote=“mnben87, post:7, topic:256646”]
In my opinion it should not matter if the fetus is a person or not from a legal standpoint. What matters is that a person has a right to their own body.
I like to think of a hypothetical example of a medical procedure in which one person could be hooked up to another’s body in order to use the other’s body function to survive. Now if I hook my self up to you to save my own life, I believe you still should have the option to disconnect me. I may feel you are being immoral, but legally you should have the right.
[/quote]
If that is the case, it would still be justifiable homicide. And that way, if someone else kills you unborn fetus/child, they could be found guilty of murder, so it is still important whether the fetus deserves human rights and at what point.
OR if done as a medical procedure it MIGHT require a degree of due process, even if that only amounts to the woman filing paperwork.
OR one other legal possibility would be for a ruling that the woman’s body is not under the jurisdiction of any government.
There is a court case on one person trying to get access to another body. The court ruled that in no circumstance does one have rights to another’s body.
It’s the closest thing to applicable that I’ve found that is similar legally. Btw, the dude ended up dying in the end, and the judge said that morally the potential match was a terrible person, but had the right to decline.