Where do rights come from?

[jamil]

2 part question.

Is abortion a right?

Is it moral?

Oh ****. Here we go.

Okay. I'll play this for awhile with my extremist moderation.

Under what moral truths can you derive abortion as right?

Under what moral truths can you conclude abortion isn't a right?

I think the problem is that the extremes on both sides can't or won't recognize that there are competing moral truths here. The extreme pro-abortion position says that the mother's right to choose is the only consideration, that the unwanted birth is the only moral consequence of that decisioon.

The extreme anti-abortion position does not recognize the mother's right to choose at all. That the only moral consequence for that position is the life of the unborn.

Most people have a hybrid view. Either choice has consequences, and it often depends on circumstances which right has a higher priority.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

The extreme anti-abortion position does not recognize the mother's right to choose at all. That the only moral consequence for that position is the life of the unborn.

This is a false narrative. Pro-lifers are all about choice. If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex. Bam there’s your choice. Other than maybe the internet, the invention of birth control has radically altered human interraction more than just about anything.

For the record, I also reeeaaallly don’t want the conversation going in this direction.

 

[jamil]

What about self-harm? What about ripping a wing off a bird for no other reason than to watch it flop around on the ground? And how far down does that vacuum go? “Well if there were no other humans and no animals and no earth then no morals would exist.” Ok fine. So, in my estimation, even that reductionist argument that morals don’t exist outside of social constructs doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are a hundred different things you can do to yourself by yourself that effect nobody but yourself that you know is wrong when you’re doing them.

Well, I don't want to presume to speak for Paul, but I assume there are no birds in his vacuum.

And you really think that objectively people will just know that some things you might do to yourself are morally wrong? Now that's getting into the very subjective moral implementations of things. So I'm guessing you're thinking along the lines of harm. Is it immoral to harm yourself? If it's your choice and it harms no one else, and you're fine with the consequences of the harm, or even reasonably ignorant of potential harm, I'd say no. I don't think there are any such moral constructs other than subjective cultural ones.

For example, some in cultures you're supposed to use your left hand to wipe your ass, and you're supposed to use your right hand to eat. Even if both hands are clean. Doesn't matter. They're using a moral foundation as a basis to believe in the moral, but if you've thoroughly washed your hands, logically there is no real consequence. Suspending belief for the moral exercise, assume you can **** in a vacuum, and wash your hands in a vacuum, and eat in a vacuum, there's no objectively moral basis to prohibit yourself from eating with your left hand. Another example. Maybe you think masturbation is morally wrong. But. You're stuck all by yourself in a vacuum? C'mon, man. Really. Whaddya gonna do? What objective morals would you be violating?

 

[2A_Tom]

For the record, I also reeeaaallly don’t want the conversation going in this direction.

I am perplexed. We are talking rights.

Here is another question.

Is self defense a right?

Is it moral?

 

[Wolfhound]

I haven't read through all 37 pages. Does anyone know if Godwin's Law has been invoked yet?

 

[jamil]

This is a false narrative. Pro-lifers are all about choice. If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex. Bam there’s your choice. Other than maybe the internet, the invention of birth control has radically altered human interraction more than just about anything.

For the record, I also reeeaaallly don’t want the conversation going in this direction.

No it's not. It may be incomplete, but not intentionally. I asked the rhetorical question, what are the underlying moral truths for each position. I didn't give them. One of the moral truths for the pro-life position deals with responsibility. It's not necessary to say those though. I'm not trying to represent, or misrepresent the pro-life position other than to talk about the underlying moral truths, that there are indeed moral truths for both sides, and that the extremes don't tend to acknowledge the other's.

Or. Are you saying there is no difference between the extreme pro-life position and the plain old vanilla pro-life position? Remember I did say extreme.

 

[jamil]

I haven't read through all 37 pages. Does anyone know if Godwin's Law has been invoked yet?

No. But since you brought it up... What Hitler did was immoral yet many Germans didn't do anything, and some supported it. For various reasons.

 

[Wolfhound]

No. But since you brought it up... What Hitler did was immoral yet many Germans didn't do anything, and some supported it. For various reasons.

Happy to help.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Since most of this thread has become TL/DR posts all basically saying the same thing over and over again, perhaps with a few minor changes in wording, I think I shall stop clicking on it. That is all. Carry on.

 

[2A_Tom]

No it's not. It may be incomplete, but not intentionally. I asked the rhetorical question, what are the underlying moral truths for each position. I didn't give them. One of the moral truths for the pro-life position deals with responsibility. It's not necessary to say those though. I'm not trying to represent, or misrepresent the pro-life position other than to talk about the underlying moral truths, that there are indeed moral truths for both sides, and that the extremes don't tend to acknowledge the other's.

Or. Are you saying there is no difference between the extreme pro-life position and the plain old vanilla pro-life position? Remember I did say extreme.

Why would you refuse to answer the question? You state what you believe others believe. I am not a mind reader as you seem to be. It is telling when someone will not answer a simple question though.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm going to delve in here, but only briefly. There are myriad other threads to discuss this specific topic. But, I will address the issue from the context of rights.

Oh ****. Here we go.

Okay. I'll play this for awhile with my extremist moderation.

Under what moral truths can you derive abortion as right?

Under what moral truths can you conclude abortion isn't a right?

I think the problem is that the extremes on both sides can't or won't recognize that there are competing moral truths here. The extreme pro-abortion position says that the mother's right to choose is the only consideration, that the unwanted birth is the only moral consequence of that decisioon.

The extreme anti-abortion position does not recognize the mother's right to choose at all.

The mother already made a choice, by choosing to have sex.

(Some fraction of a percent of abortions involve pregnancies that resulted from rape, to which my assertion doesn't apply. To the other 99+%, it does.)

That the only moral consequence for that position is the life of the unborn.

The decision to abort is, indeed, a life-or-death decision, involving the life of someone other than the decision-maker.

Most people have a hybrid view. Either choice has consequences, and it often depends on circumstances which right has a higher priority.

Under what circumstances is any right of the mother infringed by the life of the human being whose life is taken through abortion, much less a higher priority than the right to life of that human being?

(Again, some fraction of a percent of abortions are performed due to actual risk of life to the mother. This is, IMHO, the one circumstances where "competing rights" or "competing priorities" applies to the act of abortion, and pray for grace, peace, and mercy on any mother who has to make such a choice. Again, I refer to the 99+% of abortions to which this circumstance does not apply.)

 

[2A_Tom]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chipbennett again.

 

[jamil]

Why would you refuse to answer the question? You state what you believe others believe. I am not a mind reader as you seem to be. It is telling when someone will not answer a simple question though.

Oh hell. So why didn’t you say it was an ideological purity test? I can answer that.

1) Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

2) Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.


Seriously, you are kinda sounding disproportionately salty. Dude, at most I’ve only disagreed with you. And I’ve been respectful in the process. We’re just talking. At least that’s what I’ve been doing. I’ve not been snarky. So WTF?. Why the salt?

 

[2A_Tom]

It was you that first said that Christians should be the best Christians that they could be.

Prior to that I mentioned God and the Bible.

I should be a good christian and shut up.

You have a worldly (of this world) out look and I do not expect you to change your opinions.

I will not shut up though.

There is one professing Christian who refuses to doesn't want to go there. I am not of that type.

 

[jamil]

See? This is why we can't have these kinds of discussions. People get snippy when disagreed with on hot-button issues.

I'm going to delve in here, but only briefly. There are myriad other threads to discuss this specific topic. But, I will address the issue from the context of rights.



The mother already made a choice, by choosing to have sex.

(Some fraction of a percent of abortions involve pregnancies that resulted from rape, to which my assertion doesn't apply. To the other 99+%, it does.)



The decision to abort is, indeed, a life-or-death decision, involving the life of someone other than the decision-maker.



Under what circumstances is any right of the mother infringed by the life of the human being whose life is taken through abortion, much less a higher priority than the right to life of that human being?

(Again, some fraction of a percent of abortions are performed due to actual risk of life to the mother. This is, IMHO, the one circumstances where "competing rights" or "competing priorities" applies to the act of abortion, and pray for grace, peace, and mercy on any mother who has to make such a choice. Again, I refer to the 99+% of abortions to which this circumstance does not apply.)

CP accuses me of a false narrative. Tom thinks I'm avoiding the question, when I really thought we were still talking the deeper points of morality. And now you seem to think something needs vigorously defended. Like I said elsewhere, I like you guys too much to get upset over a discussion of ideas. I mean. I like talking about ideas. Getting into a deeper discussion of morality is a great conversation in my estimation. But you get too serious or whatnot and I'd rather just talk about boobs.

However, since you said some stuff. I gotta say some stuff back. The mother's choice to participate in having sex does not automatically mean she forfeits her rights after that, at least depending on the circumstances. If you can imagine no circumstances where that is so, I suggest that this may be more of an ideological or religious issue than just moral truths.

 

[jamil]

It was you that first said that Christians should be the best Christians that they could be.

Prior to that I mentioned God and the Bible.

I should be a good christian and shut up.

You have a worldly (of this world) out look and I do not expect you to change your opinions.

I will not shut up though.

There is one professing Christian who refuses to doesn't want to go there. I am not of that type.

What? Okay. I'm pretty sure we're talking past each other. I have no idea where this is coming from. I honestly don't know what you're trying to say to me. I'm not your enemy. No one's asking you to shut up. I'm certainly not. I honestly don't see any reason to be salty.

I don't know how anything I said could be construed as me telling you to be a good Christian and shut up. Yes, I've had a secular worldview for maybe 15 years now. I do, however, change my opinions when I understand that they need to be adjusted to meet my best estimation of reality. But you're right that I'm not likely to change my opinions back to what they were prior to 20 years ago. I think it's okay for religious people and non-religious people to talk about stuff like morality. I'm not trying to convert you. I don't expect to change your mind either about your faith. And I don't want to. Like I said earlier, I do not like religious debates. You be you. But people get salty about stuff they feel passionate about, and I know people feel passionately about their faith. People get mad at each other. If I'm going to be mad at you, I'd rather it's because you've insulted my beloved Sig P220.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh hell. So why didn’t you say it was an ideological purity test? I can answer that.

1) Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

2) Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.


Seriously, you are kinda sounding disproportionately salty. Dude, at most I’ve only disagreed with you. And I’ve been respectful in the process. We’re just talking. At least that’s what I’ve been doing. I’ve not been snarky. So WTF?. Why the salt?

You must be new here. First time you seen that 'eh?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

My embedding skills are lacking but I would HIGHLY recommend that those interested in this discussion watch and/or listen to the video I posted in post #343.

 

[Jludo]

My embedding skills are lacking but I would HIGHLY recommend that those interested in this discussion watch and/or listen to the video I posted in post #343.

I watched it, I'm sure it's not surprising that I fall on the Sam Harris/ Steven pinker side of the debate. What role Christian thinkers and philosophy played in history and getting us to where we are I don't really dispute. That doesn't make Christianity true though.

Also I much prefer watching two people who disagree on a subject talk than listen to two people tell each other why they're correct.

 

[chipbennett]

See? This is why we can't have these kinds of discussions. People get snippy when disagreed with on hot-button issues.



CP accuses me of a false narrative. Tom thinks I'm avoiding the question, when I really thought we were still talking the deeper points of morality. And now you seem to think something needs vigorously defended. Like I said elsewhere, I like you guys too much to get upset over a discussion of ideas. I mean. I like talking about ideas. Getting into a deeper discussion of morality is a great conversation in my estimation. But you get too serious or whatnot and I'd rather just talk about boobs.

Perhaps it was the context (i.e. following other things posted by other people), but I don't think my post implies any sort of rigorous defense? In fact, I tried to make clear that I'm not getting into that level of discussion about abortion in this thread, but instead limiting it to the context of rights.

But, it wouldn't be the first time that I've been accused of being "too serious." I'm probably guilty as charged. It's just a personality fault.

However, since you said some stuff. I gotta say some stuff back. The mother's choice to participate in having sex does not automatically mean she forfeits her rights after that, at least depending on the circumstances. If you can imagine no circumstances where that is so, I suggest that this may be more of an ideological or religious issue than just moral truths.

I don't intend this as snark: please re-read my post. I do describe such circumstances. I do believe that they are limited, on the basis of "competing rights", but I acknowledge when they exist.

You must also realize (even if you don't agree) that I approach the discussion from the perspective of every human being having all intrinsic, natural rights inherent on the basis of being a living human being - which includes the unborn, who are (undeniably) living human beings. Thus, the question I posed is really the central question of the issue: Under what circumstances is any right of the mother infringed by the life of the human being whose life is taken through abortion, much less a higher priority than the right to life of that human being?

(And, again, I did acknowledge what I believe is one, and the only, such such circumstance.)

I'm willing to discuss that question - but not much else, at least in this thread - about abortion.