Is there a right to abortion, and if so, where does the right come from?

Nobody can "counter it" when dealing with humans in denial.

 

I will guess that God saves the righteous a huge per centage of the woe and suffering of killing an inocent and pray He will continue to do so. AMEN

 

You spelled out nothing. You simply made a very wrong assumption.
Stating might makes right, does not equal all other rights(privileges according to you) aren't good.
Might makes right when all the man made rights fail. And at the end of the day, that will rule when all man made rights fail.

The only inherent right we have is might makes right.

...
Definition of inherent


: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic
...

Notice inherent is man made. For a constitution is man made.
Now something belonging by nature, means it occurs naturally, IMO.
Life occurs naturally. So we all have all have a right to life. The only true, not man made, right.

I am not a tyrant. So your claim that only tyrants believe might makes right is wrong. I simply see that at the end of the day, it's all that will matter.
Unless we keep a society that can grant and protect any other rights we want. Privileges as you call them.

 

God didn't say that, man did.

 

Very few if any constitutional rights are absolute. It is just a matter where the line is drawn like on where a persons right to speech or assemble can be restricted. The courts have ruled that highly restricting ownership of automatic weapons does not infringe on 2nd amendment rights (I don't agree, but don't get excited about it), though having a law that forces people to keep a gun unloaded, taken apart, and locked up in their home does (ala Heller). Sometimes rights are mutually exclusive. An interesting example was the OJ trial where the accused, OJ, has a constitutional right to confront witnesses against him, but the witness, Fuhrman, has a constitutional right not to testify -- both cannot exist at the same time.

Of course that is the crux of the debate: when does an abortion take a human life which certainly infringes one someone else's right.

 

I most certainly did, and then I re-posted it for you a second time in red bold face so there shouldn't be any confusion about what I spelled out for you, i.e., the argument of the tyrant. That was a rebuttal to your claim "There's no god given rights." in #363:

Now, initially, I can understand where there might have been some confusion because you made two claims, the other one being "When push comes to shove. Might make right is the only true right there is." and my reply could interpreted as a rebuttal to both your claims. It was intended as such, but as it turns out it can serve as a rebuttal to both, which Le Chef expanded upon with his/her own Socrates rebuttal.

It looks like you made the assumption here and that will be clarified further in a moment. I haven't made any assumptions.

That's not a point I addressed or contested. I pointed out that it's not a right at all.

Which is false on two levels:

1) It's not a right

2) Individuals possess multiple inherent rights

I noticed 1) that it is not man made and 2) that is not what the definition says.

Read the definition again:

"involved in the constitution or essential character of something"

Note that it does not say "a constitution"

Maybe this definition will help:

inherent
in·her·ent
[inˈhirənt, inˈherənt]
ADJECTIVE

1. existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute

So, an inherent right, or inherent natural right, would be a right that is a permanent, essential or characteristic attribute of human nature (often referred to as Nature in rights discourse) and human beings. In other words, it's 1) part of who and what you are and 2) you are born with it. Again, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn't matter which origin theory you subscribe to, you are born with that right, just like you are born with the brain that enables you to recognize your rights through your human faculty of Reason.

Sounds reasonable and logical to me....

I would agree we have a right to life, but it's not the only inherent natural right we possess. For example, there is the one I pointed out in the OP (quoting Richard Overton) - the right to self-proprietorship. There's the rights to self-preservation and self-defense. I could go on, and again, there is no such thing as a man made right. Privileges are man made - that's what distinguishes them from rights.

I never made either claim....

Fair enough...

Again, rights and privileges are two different things, but let's set that aside for a moment.

From the Preamble of the DOI:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

We never discussed this directly, but it appears that we would agree on the benefit and importance of instituting a government that secures our rights, and that would include the rights affirmed in the DOI and COTUS.

Now that that's all cleared up (I hope), if you want to further debate my arguments that's fine but I'm not terribly interested in picking up the discussion/debate you had with Le Chef about what Socrates refuted 2000 years ago, etc.

 

Agree. Nothing in terms of laws and even definitions of words are absolute.
It's always about a line in the sand, or a risk vs reward scenario.

For some reason, the law won't give a definition of beginning of life. Probably because that also is a complex argument to draw a line in the sand. And there's no clear cut scientific decision on when that happens.
We do have a definition of end of life, brain wave activity. So there is some precedent of sorts.

With something so complex as abortion or beginning of life is to define I can see it is a hot topic.
But, IMO, until there's some line, even if it's a very wide line, drawn, we should leave it alone and go with the doctor, pregnant mother, and perhaps family and friends to determine whether or not to abort.
I am male, so I have no skin in the game. And I would not encourage anyone I know, if all things are healthy, to get an abortion. But the genie has been out of the bottle for almost 50 yrs, it won't go back into the bottle.

 

The "Creator" - whoever/whatever that is - never said that either, and I never claimed that either one of them did. Clearly, the Founders were speaking for themselves.

Are you suggesting that God has to say "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" for it to be true?

If you are suggesting that God must, William of Ockham dispensed with that "necessity" over 375 years ago.

 

It's not cleared up. I disagree with your opinion.
I disagree with your red bolded part of a post of another's opinion about tyrants and might makes right.

The only rights anyone has is the right to life.
All others are granted and enforced by some mechanism and society usually decides which rights that society wants. In free ones anyway.

So, per the preamble, man created rights and then assemble a gov't to carry out those man created rights. AS I've been saying.

Now another in this thread used the same words and said those words are explicit. They are not. Unless women are not part of the DOI.
And some of the writers owned other people, kind of blows the explicit meaning out of the water about "all men are created equal" while some of the men owned other men.

Now in the case of this thread, right to abortion, can't woman us the DOI preamble to have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Or as the USSC ruled almost 50 yrs ago, a right to privacy per the 14th A?

You made a claim that only tyrants believe in might makes right. I say no, I believe that and I am NOT a tyrant.
I just understand that at the end of the day, when poop hits the fan, that is the only right that will matter.

 

Everything that god said is in the bible.

 

I'm fine either way.

The part in red is about the benefit/importance of instituting governments - to secure our rights

Incorrect/disagree. Our numerous inherent rights are inherent. Governments and societies can only affirm and secure rights and grant privileges.

That's not what the Preamble says. It says our rights are endowed to us by our Creator and governments are instituted to secure our rights.

I don't know what context the word "explicit" was used in, and I don't know what is exactly meant by "men" or "Creator" either, but you're right - some of the Founders didn't practice what they preached, but some did. For example, when James Otis, Jr. was arguing against general writs of assistance in Paxton's Case (1761), he declared that Blacks possessed the same inherent natural rights as Whites. Others, including Jefferson, knew damned well they were hypocrites, and Abigail Adams let her husband John know that he was one, too.

The thing one has to realize, and the Founders knew this too, is that the DOI and COTUS are just a beginning, not an end. The struggle for individual freedom that began thousands of years ago is still being fought today, and judging from Alito's brief we lost a battle in that war last week.

I certainly think and say they do, and I laid out my argument in the Opening Post (it's in my signature, too). Women have an inviolable right to self-proprietorship.

Nope, I claimed that tyrants don't believe in inherent natural rights (God-given or otherwise). All the tyrant believes in are the privileges the tyrant is willing to give people. Together they constitute what I called the Argument of the Tyrant.

 

Not sure who your god is, but with my God, God said everything in the Bible.. not everything God said is in the Bible. Logical fallacy.

 

Absolutely false and flies go back to the DoI. The fact that you are CREATED with and ENDOWED with these rights supercede's government permission, the Constitution protects those rights it did not invent them.

If youbwant to exclude women and black's that is your choice then.
[
...

Nor indiscriminately take the life of an innocent human being.

The life in the womb is an existing human being a person.

If you want to go on record saying women do not have a fundamental right to life go ahead.

 

Again what's the lie? What I posted is a truth as the state of abortion in this country and the Dems just attempted to codify.

 

ROTFL and how many intelligence experts are there in the country but only 50 said the Biden laptop was fake?

Lack of rebuttal, ignoring the other two cites entirely, and diversion noted.

 

Nope you got nothing try again

Why does it being taxpayer paid for make it more effective? Does it make my blood pressure medicine more effective if it is free?

Why shouldn't women take responsibility for themselves and not have to rely on others? Heck they make the men help pay for it.

 

Ok, please point where god said anything about rights?

 

https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/

Again, you care more about money than preventing abortions. Got it.

 

Do you believe government is supposed to pay for EVERYTHING that we citizens bear no responsibility for ourselves?

AGAIN

Why does it being taxpayer paid for make it more effective? Does it make my blood pressure medicine more effective if it is free?

Why shouldn't women take responsibility for themselves and not have to rely on others? Heck they can make the men help pay for it.

 

The question is:IS REDUCING ABORTIONS SOMETHING WORTH SPENDING TAXPAYER MONEY ON. YES OR NO?

 

The questions I asked are

Why does it being taxpayer paid for make it more effective? Does it make my blood pressure medicine more effective if it is free?

Why shouldn't women take responsibility for themselves and not have to rely on others? Heck they can make the men help pay for it.

Why do you insist on throwing it back on the taxpayers especially those who DO pay for THEIR own BC. Why do you absolve the people engaged in the act that could create that life of ALL responsibilities?

 

I don't know.
Because its effective at reducing pregnancy's and thus abortions.

Now answer the question: IS REDUCING ABORTIONS SOMETHING WORTH SPENDING TAXPAYER MONEY ON. YES OR NO?

 

Pardon me for interjecting, but that's an easy one:

The Ten Commandments.

Implicit in some of the prohibitions contained within the 10C are rights, for example, the prohibition to kill implies a right to life and the prohibition to steal implies a right to private property.

 

The 10C also outlaw freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and celebrate the idea of punishing people for the crimes of others. There is no actual concept of individual rights in the 10C.

 

Nope, sorry.