CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is this reason enough to deny children their rights?
Quocalimar said: Women who can't keep a child will always try to do something to get rid of it, that may include going to shady illegal places to terminate the pregnancy, or a more drastic and less likely method of doing dangerous substances, in the hope for a miscarriage. Which isn't really solving the issue it's just making women find alternatives while they still push the issue hoping to end the alternative practices.
QUESTION: Is this reason enough to justify denying children their rights to the equal protections of our laws?
What you claim: Those fetuses are not children. They are at that moment no more a 'child' than a sperm or egg cell.
What our current law says: ... the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
That was a strong argument that he back up with an actual definition for his case which you seem to not acknowledge as true or credible. He just busted your argument.
The point is, I always reply with the same logical answer to the same argument he begins with every time. That's why I said it was beating a dead horse.
So why is his argument bad if it qualifies him as being correct and it can successfully quell other arguements against his side? He successfully argued for the term child.
You should check my replies to the same comment on other abortion debates.
He's using semantics in the wording of their documents to make his point, when the definitions I use don't support his point. We are literally at a standstill where the definition I use is almost the exact opposite, or excluding of, the sources he uses.
What about the definition of child being :A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority.
A human being in the fetal stage of their life would fit that description.
A human being being: a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species
Ditto.
A person being: A human being regarded as an individual
Ditto
You have not shown how any of those definitions would exclude a child in the fetal stage of their life.
And remember, it only takes one definition being applicable for the word to apply. A basket-ball doesn't have to also be a place where people go to dance... in order for it to be called a "ball."
The very fact that you can (and do) refer to a fetus* as AFETUS is proof of and recognition of the fact that it is a separate being.
A child in the fetal part of their life lives a separate life from that of the mother's. They have a separate body of their own. They are separated from their mother's body by the bag of waters and the placental barrier. They have completely different DNA and at least half the time a different sex from the mother.
You make the same mistake that many pro-aborts make. You think that separate must also mean separated and it doesn't.
Look up any reputable biological reference and not that Placental Mammals (including humans) carry their YOUNG in the womb during their early stages of life.
Do the math.
If their young are not separate beings.... they couldn't possibly be their young.
The very fact that you can (and do) refer to a fetus as A FETUS is proof of and recognition of the fact that it is a separate being.*
I refer to hair as hair and nails as nails, yet those are not separate of the human body now are they? They can be removed but they are apart of us. A fingerprint has a name yet it can't be removed in the sense that after removed it can be a separate thing.
Well I don't refer to a fetus as I would my hair, but you tried to make it seem as if anything that has a different name then myself that is attached to me is a separate thing to me, I was simply proving that is not the case. Unfortunately that is the case with a fetus, that's why a woman's rights has dominion over said fetus.
The question remains (for everyone else as we already know your views) is this... "Is the chance that women will resort to extreme measures to abort heir children - reason enough to deny their children the protections of our laws and to keep abortions legal"
That's not at all the argument I'm referring to. If it was I would have said my reply as my initial argument. Instead I said my reply to the same, tired, old argument you always begin with when someone says a fetus is not a child.
The references you have presented always only play off of semantics and document wording. Like I said if a document accidently calls a cat a canine and a dog a feline, dogs are not cats and cats are no dogs.
The references you have presented always only play off of semantics and document wording. Like I said if a document accidently calls a cat a canine and a dog a feline, dogs are not cats and cats are no dogs.
The references I cited were the U.S. Code and the Meriam Webster's Medical Dictionary.
If they are not sufficient to defeat your denials... I can't imagine what references would be.
The denials are ground in the fact that no one calls a fetus a child except you and these sources making those sources a defeat of the language not a defeat of the law.
The denials are ground in the fact that no one calls a fetus a child except you and these sources making those sources a defeat of the language not a defeat of the law.
In your links am I looking for the word 'children' used? That's obvious, it's simpler to call the young of the parents a 'child', but it doesn't support the dictionary I used that says :"A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority."
Why do you want to debate this point again? You already conceded that despite the wording of that one act USA law does not grant the same rights to a fetus as it does to a born child.
Why do you want to debate this point again? You already conceded that despite the wording of that one act USA law does not grant the same rights to a fetus as it does to a born child.
Actually it's that one act and the resulting language of the fetal homicide laws in over 38 States and counting.
As for why it's necessary to continue debating that point (that a child in the womb is a child?)
That debate is necessary to eventuall change the rest of the (related) laws and to get the same langiuage passed in the remaining States. (Possibly even in other countries)
Chuz, you've really got to be careful when choosing your argument titles. They are not children, and they have as many rights as a spot someone has picked off their face. They would have rights if they were children, but they're not. So honestly stop it, we're all sick of your countless " are foetuses children" and " Is abortion commiting mass murder". We all know what you think, and you're nto going to convert anyone in to thinking what you think. They are NOT children, look uop child in a dictionary or type it in to google images if you have to.
Chuz, you've really got to be careful when choosing your argument titles. They are not children, and they have as many rights as a spot someone has picked off their face. They would have rights if they were children, but they're not... They are NOT children, look uop child in a dictionary or type it in to google images if you have to.
What the fuck honestly how can you be so stupid and yet argue with the utmost surety.?!
A young person between infancy and youth. That means the child has been born. I am not disputing that a young child isn't a young child, I am disputing that a foetus the size of a marble is not a child. Look that one up idiot, if you have a 9 month old baby in the womb, it is no longer a foetus. Besides don't try to prove something to me with just one source, find me 10 sources telling me that " a foetus " (then give me a picture of said foetus, say 3 weeks old) " a foetus is exactly the same as any normal born child, it has feelings, emotions, and is perfectly aware of it's surroundings."
Find me something that says that. Oh wait, you won't, because it is a scientific fact, that marble sized foetuses ( give or take an inch squared) are NOT conscience.
An egg is swept into the fallopian tube after ovulation. If a sperm makes its way from the vagina through the uterus to the egg within 24 hours, conception is likely to occur. By the end of the first month (five weeks), the embryo is about 0.25cm or a 10th of an inch long. The heart, no larger than a poppy seed, has begun beating.
An egg is swept into the fallopian tube after ovulation. If a sperm makes its way from the vagina through the uterus to the egg within 24 hours, conception is likely to occur. By the end of the first month (five weeks), the embryo is about 0.25cm or a 10th of an inch long. The heart, no larger than a poppy seed, has begun beating.
"...the embryo is about 0.25cm or a 10th of an inch long. The heart, no larger than a poppy seed, has begun beating."
Ooh, this source on caring for ones child calls it an embryo, not a child. Therefore it must be right, if this one source thinks so...
Fe•tus (ˈfi təs)
n., pl. -tus•es.
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development, in humans being after the end of the second month of gestation.
[1350–1400; Middle English < Latin fētus bringing forth of young]
This source says after the second month. So I suppose this one must be right too.
A young person between infancy and youth. That means the child has been born. I am not disputing that a young child isn't a young child, I am disputing that a foetus the size of a marble is not a child.
Again, the legal definitions say that you are wrong about that. As do medical definitions. What you are failing to appreciate is the fact that the definitions of for the word child are broad enough and inclusive enough to apply to BOTH - a child inside the womb and a child just born or delivered from the womb.
You make the same mistake that Quocalimar makes when you think that one definition excludes the other.
As far as your demand for sources?
The legal source is the end all to the debate as far as I am concerned. (As abortion is a LEGAL issue)
Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006) defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability and specifies that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/9-1.2, § 5/9-2.1 and § 5/9-3.2 define intentional homicide of an unborn child, voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child, involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide of an unborn child, respectively. The laws define "unborn child" as any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth".
2010 Ill. Laws, P.A. 1294 amended the Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 730 § 154/1 et seq.) to include aggravated battery of an unborn child as a "violent offense against youth." (2010 SB 3305; 2011 HB 263)
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5419 "Alexa's Law" defines "unborn child" as a living individual organism of the species Homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth. The law specifies that "person" and "human being" shall also mean an unborn child as used in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5401 through § 21-5406 and § 21-5413 which define murder in the first and second degrees, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, battery, aggravated battery, capital murder and involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (2010 HB 2668)
Because when he said the term child ( if you read the description properly) he meant an unborn child. I say a young fetus is not a child. Christ I have made myself hoarse telling you all this.
This was one of the things that helped me overcome my own denials about it. Sometimes when I'm arguing against pro-abrts, I actually get the sense that I'm still arguing against myself.
FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL OF THE PROABORTION PEOPLE NEED TO HERE THAT POINT! IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE. IF YOU DON'T WANT THE CHILD.............THEN GIVE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE INSTEAD OF KILLIG IT!
so you would want s child to be bought into the horrible conditions of poverty? that seems more cruel then aborting when it can't even feel pain or aware of it's surroundings.
With abortion banned, maybe the parents will be more careful and not create the children in the first place. But yeah... to answer your question, a child born into poverty (as I pretty much was) actually has the same rights as anyone else... including a right to the protections of our laws.
With abortion banned, maybe the parents will be more careful and not create the children in the first place.
Actually with abortion banned women and fetuses will be getting killed. is that what you want? more people that contribute to society to die from easily preventable deaths? Just so you can bring more people into poverty and adoption agencies?
1. We have had abortion banned before (as it is now in Ireland) and your claims are unfounded. Women were not being killed in any great numbers prior to Roe and they are not being killed in ireland now.
2. Abortion on demand has done nothing to eliminate poverty nor children being born into poverty. There is nothing to support your claims that more children would be born into poverty as a result of voluntary abortion being banned.
As it stands at the moment the legal view is that abortion is not killing a child it is killing a clump of cells that have the potential to becoming a child, your opinion that it is a child is purely that and no matter how many debates you post saying it is a child will not change peoples minds.
Ignoring the whole rights issue it is true that if abortion is made illegal a lot of women will use dodgy ways of getting an abortion if successful the fetus is still aborted, if unsuccessful and worse case senariou both mother and fetus die, either way no child is saved and in addition you also have a dead woman how is that better than a legal abortion where just the fetus is destroyed.
As it stands at the moment the legal view is that abortion is not killing a child it is killing a clump of cells that have the potential to becoming a child, your opinion that it is a child is purely that and no matter how many debates you post saying it is a child will not change peoples minds.
Again, This is what our current law says:" ... the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
Ignoring the whole rights issue it is true that if abortion is made illegal a lot of women will use dodgy ways of getting an abortion if successful the fetus is still aborted, if unsuccessful and worse case senariou both mother and fetus die, either way no child is saved and in addition you also have a dead woman how is that better than a legal abortion where just the fetus is destroyed.
That's just it.
You seem to be willing to ignore the rights of the children and many of us are not.
You are simply wrong when you claim that the legal view is anything other than that.
I support medical necessity abortions as they can be justified as an act of self defense.
That said, I also think that doctors should be required to do all that they can do to save both the mothers and their children.
Edited: Oh wait, you are trying to make the case that it's better to let women molest err. kill their children than run the risk of hem killing themselves and their children in back alleys.
No deal.
Children have a right to the protections of our laws... that way, when their mothers take to the back allies to kill them? We can put the child killing asses in jail where they belong.
So you think its better for both woman and fetus to die in a botched dodgy abortion rather than just the fetus in a legal one, how does that make you pro-life?
There are no absolute rights. The questions assumes that there are. However, simply because there are no absolute rights does not negate the fact that morals and ethics both display that denying a child or fetus life is evil. Moreover, to continue the thought, in regards to abortion, the woman has no absolute rights either. She has the right, in the narrower sense, which means ability and capacity to be able, to abort. However, she also has the right, meaning ability and capacity to be able, to murder and steal and abuse others. That does not make it morally right, in the sense of right and wrong, though. Therefore, an argument from absolute rights, in the sense of natural and in-dissolvable, eternal, rights, is fool hardy. It needs to be from the stance of morality and ethical belief. Children do not have rights, nor do women. Do what is good.
Quite frankly, I don't care about the Constitution. I disagree with a lot of John Locke's philosophy, which is the basis for America's entire government. I disagree with the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the basis for America, the American way, the social structures of America, etc.
Moreover, simply because a document says we have rights does not mean that we do. If our Constitution said that it was our right to murder others, then would that be morally good? By no means!
I'm actually more of a fascist, to be technical. However, Republican party is the closest the profile would allow; similar to liberals being the closest to communists. And, as a side note, fascism has a negative connotation to it: it simply means, in this context, that I am extremely conservative and extremely right-winged, which is further conservative than Republicans. Republicans do believe in the Constitution and the American way: I do not, for I am further conservative than the origins of America.
What do you mean by the following statement: "So, may I ask what your problem is with the idea that all persons have an equal right to the protections of our laws?"
What do you mean by the following statement: "So, may I ask what your problem is with the idea that all persons have an equal right to the protections of our laws?"
You said that you don't agree with that part of the Constitution... so I would like to know why you disagree with the equal protections clause of the Constitution.
I don't believe that people have a right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. There are no unalienable rights. That means that it is a universal constant. Protection under the law of these rights would mean that, regardless of criminal background, one would have to be granted the right to live how he or she wanted. In fact, by definition of American's having an unalienable right to liberty, then laws cannot be instituted. Laws are created, from the power of the people, through the forfeiting of their rights, in order to retain peace and order. I have no problem with laws; however, if we have a right, then according to that right, by definition, it cannot be stripped away from us. However, we have clearly been given the power to take life, should the government need to do so in order to retain that peace. Moreover, equal protection under the law is not a right. It is an American custom; for if it were a right, then everyone would have that equality, regardless of citizenship. Furthermore, John Locke's entire philosophy is contradictory, for he says that with every right comes duty to retain that right. However, if we have a duty to retain the rights of others, then our we have not freedom and liberty. The American philosophy is backed by illogical reasoning and should be thrown out. The Constitution itself has logical inconsistencies along those same lines. To conclude: equal protection is illogical because it would mean that no one person's life or liberty could be stripped of him. If a criminal is murdering people, then justice demands his life. His rights would then be stripped. If out rights can be stripped, then we, in reality, have no rights.
I don't believe that people have a right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
1. Do you have a right to defend yourself? Do you have a right to defend your family? Your property? Your neighbors? A total stranger?
There are no unalienable rights.
2. You can't prove a negative so I won't ask you to. So, can you appreciate the fact that an inalienable right is what we say it is?
Protection under the law of these rights would mean that, regardless of criminal background, one would have to be granted the right to live how he or she wanted.
3. I don't agree that a right to life is something that is granted. We have established that people have a right to their life. That means that if you are a person (human being) it is automatic. Also, rights do not take place in a vacuum. The right to live simply means the right to not be killed unjustly. You are extended it to points beyond reason.
I have no problem with laws; however, if we have a right, then according to that right, by definition, it cannot be stripped away from us.
4. If a right is given or granted (such as the right to drive or vote or get married) it can be revoked - with sufficient justification (due process)... If a right is inherent (like the right to life is)... it can not be revoked. Rather, it can be "deprived" to an individual. Again,... with due process. Depriving an individual of a right is not the same thing as revoking that right. Due process recognizes the fact some rights are inherent and others are granted and treats them all accordingly.
Moreover, equal protection under the law is not a right. It is an American custom; for if it were a right, then everyone would have that equality, regardless of citizenship.
However, if we have a duty to retain the rights of others, then our we have not freedom and liberty.
Say what?
To conclude: equal protection is illogical because it would mean that no one person's life or liberty could be stripped of him. If a criminal is murdering people, then justice demands his life. His rights would then be stripped. If out rights can be stripped, then we, in reality, have no rights.
6. Again, the Constitution's use of the word deprived seems to have slipped past you. If you own a car and I take it from you... You still own it even if you have been deprived of it as a posession.
That's a rather simple illustration, but you should be able to see the point. The right that a person has to their life is not what is taken away - when they are (after due process) executed for their crimes. The right must first exist in order for an accused person to be (through due process) deprived of it.
1. Do you have a right to defend yourself? Do you have a right to defend your family? Your property? Your neighbors? A total stranger?
No, we do not have the right to defend ourselves. However, those questions don't encompass the entire issue. We have the duty, which does not inherently infer right, though rights have inferred duties, to defend others, while retaining moral goodness. Do we have a duty to defend ourselves? In a sense, yes. And in a sense, no. We have the duty to retain our lives; we do not have the duty to defend it against others. Pacifism is for the self, yet defending for your neighbors: this is the way to undying selflessness.
2. You can't prove a negative so I won't ask you to. So, can you appreciate the fact that an inalienable right is what we say it is?
Oh of course you can prove a negative! You can disprove "not A" if "A" does exist. The Declaration of Independence states that we have unalienable rights. Inalienable rights, if you are to say they are rights that are ours until we give them away, are logically contradictory. For if you have the right to make a decision to give away other rights, then you do not have the ability to retake those others rights, for those rights have been ceased. If you don't have the ability to retake those rights, then you don't have the choice to retake those rights, for you cannot choose something that you cannot do. If you don't have the choice to retake those rights, then you don't have the ability to choose which rights to give away again, for your right to choice has been ceased. Therefore, your ability to give up your rights is gone. However, you can then say that we have an unalienable right to choose. But if we have an unalienable right to choose, then you have one of two things: (1) your choices are irrelevant, and thus there are no inalienable rights, or (2) you can choose to retake those right, which would then mean that there is no point to giving them away. Therefore, inalienable rights are illogical. Thus, out rights must be unalienable or non-existent.
Moreover, to show that we do not have unalienable rights: we die. If we had the unalienable right to life, then it could not be stripped from us. Do we have the unalienable right to liberty? Can I move a mountain under my own volition? I do not have the liberty to do so. Do I have the liberty to kill another? That is morally reprehensible. What about the pursuit of happiness? If happiness if the basis for morality, then psychopaths would be the hero of society. However, unalienable rights are illogical, regardless, for we die and our rights to everything cease: they have been taken away from us.
3. I don't agree that a right to life is something that is granted. We have established that people have a right to their life. That means that if you are a person (human being) it is automatic. Also, rights do not take place in a vacuum. The right to live simply means the right to not be killed unjustly. You are extended it to points beyond reason.
Who is to say what is just and unjust? Is treason unjust? We have been given laws to ensure that we can rebel against the government if it becomes oppressive. However, we are also told that treason is a capital crime. Those aren't logically consistent. However, regardless of whether or not a person has done something unjust, if he or she has an unalienable right, then it cannot be stripped from him or her.
4. If a right is given or granted (such as the right to drive or vote or get married) it can be revoked - with sufficient justification (due process)... If a right is inherent (like the right to life is)... it can not be revoked. Rather, it can be "deprived" to an individual. Again,... with due process. Depriving an individual of a right is not the same thing as revoking that right. Due process recognizes the fact some rights are inherent and others are granted and treats them all accordingly.
You are begging the question. You are assuming that America's laws are correct and using that as a basis. If one has an unalienable right, then it cannot be stripped from him or her.
5. For what it's worth - The Supreme Court has ruled that non Citizens actually are entitled to the equal protections of our laws.
Many unalienable rights, as America cannot be universalized such as the right to our own opinion.
However, if we have a duty to retain the rights of others, then our we have not freedom and liberty.
Say what?
That is stripping one of their right to be in a state of liberty.
6. Again, the Constitution's use of the word deprived seems to have slipped past you. If you own a car and I take it from you... You still own it even if you have been deprived of it as a posession.
If you deprive me of my liberty, as in being in jail, then I do not have the unalienable right to liberty.
That's a rather simple illustration, but you should be able to see the point. The right that a person has to their life is not what is taken away - when they are (after due process) executed for their crimes. The right must first exist in order for an accused person to be (through due process) deprived of it.
Due process does not matter. If someone has an unalienable right, then it cannot be stripped from him or her.
An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken away or given away. If you deprive someone of their rights, then it has momentarily been taken away from them, though not necessarily permanently, for they have been denied their ability to exercise those eights, which is a restriction of liberty. To say that someone retains their rights, while being deprived of them is logically impossible. It's like saying A equals not A. If a person can have their rights taken away from them at one moment, which is to deprive them of their rights, for they have been denied their ability to exercise their rights, then they do not have unalienable rights.
Moreover, simply depriving someone through due process means nothing. I can chain someone to a wall and murder them: I would have deprived them of their rights, for they would have been free otherwise, and I would be incapable of murdering them.
An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken away or given away.
On that we agree but I thought that you don't believe in them. Do you now?
If you deprive someone of their rights, then it has momentarily been taken away from them.
This is where you have it wrong.
The right is not taken away. The person is simply not allowed to exercise it.
Those are not the same thing. yet as shown below, you are trying to treat them as the same.
they have been denied their ability to exercise those eights, which is a restriction of liberty.
Their rights are only deprived after due process. Their liberty restrictions have been justified.
To say that someone retains their rights, while being deprived of them is logically impossible.
This comment shows that you still don't understand or appreciate the differences between being deprived of the right to exercise something and the inherent rights that they have.
A prime illustration would be the fact that a person (even a convicted murderer on death row) still has the right to kill another person in a justified act of self defense.
Okay, we're going to have to get this straight. If someone is deprived of their right, then they do not have it, by definition of them being deprived of it. If you are being deprived of a car, then you do not have a car. If you are being deprived of your ability to drive a car, then you do not have the liberty to drive that car. I can't help you past that: thats the definition of it, for if you are deprived of something, then you do not have it, thus your right is no more. shaking my head; palm to face
A prime illustration would be the fact that a person (even a convicted murderer on death row) still has the right to kill another person in a justified act of self defense.
This is what I thought you were doing: you are equivocating on the word "right." You are also doing what is called the fallacy of composition at the same time as division. That person would have that right to self-defense if that person was attacked. However, if he or she is in jail, then he or she has been stripped of his or her liberty, which is a right, according to America. At the same time, he or she would retain the right to self-defense: two separate rights.
Their liberty restrictions have been justified. You are missing the point. Right there you said that their liberty is restricted. If someone is restricted, then he or she does not have total freedom. If he or she does not have total freedom, then he or she is not in a state of liberty. Therefore, any restriction on liberty are a violation of that right. In fact, people are always saying that their rights are infringed upon: are they not? The only way a right can be infringed upon is if it is not unalienable. You are begging the question: as I said before.
If you are being deprived of your ability to drive a car, then you do not have the liberty to drive that car. I can't help you past that: thats the definition of it, for if you are deprived of something, then you do not have it, thus your right is no more. shaking my head; palm to face
I'm sorry your are having such a hard time with this... but I have already refuted what you just claimed with my example of the fact that even a convicted felon scheduled for execution by the State can still justifiably kill another in an act of self defense.
He or she doesn't surrender or loose their right to life. The State (government) simply justifies their right (by due process) to kill them as punishment for their crimes.
However, if he or she is in jail, then he or she has been stripped of his or her liberty, which is a right, according to America. At the same time, he or she would retain the right to self-defense: two separate rights.
Without a right to life there is no right to self defense
You are missing the point. Right there you said that their liberty is restricted. If someone is restricted, then he or she does not have total freedom. If he or she does not have total freedom, then he or she is not in a state of liberty. Therefore, any restriction on liberty are a violation of that right. In fact, people are always saying that their rights are infringed upon: are they not? The only way a right can be infringed upon is if it is not unalienable. You are begging the question: as I said before.
It still escapes you, doesn't it.... that if the restrictions are justified... (again by an act of due process) then they are not a violation.
Someone in your civil rights classes have failed in educating you on this.
He or she doesn't surrender or loose their right to life. The State (government) simply justifies their right (by due process) to kill them as punishment for their crimes.
And at that point there that person's life has been stripped from them.
Without a right to life there is no right to self defense
There is no right to self-defense. There is only the duty defend others.
It still escapes you, doesn't it.... that if the restrictions are justified... (again by an act of due process) then they are not a violation.
It doesn't matter if something is justified or not. If one strips something, it has been stripped. Thus, there are no unalienable rights.
1. Their life isn't stripped from them until they are actually executed.
2. Your claim that there is no right to self defense has been defeated countless times in courtrooms accross the planet.
3. You claim that rights are not inalienable - yet, when I looked up the word inalienable, even the dictionaries use it with reference to basic human rights.
1. Their life isn't stripped from them until they are actually executed.
Therefore, once someone dies, then they have had their right to life stripped from them. Therefore, because unalienable rights are incapable of being taken from someone nor given away to another, there are no unalienable rights.
2. Your claim that there is no right to self defense has been defeated countless times in courtrooms accross the planet.
It doesn't matter if the laws of nations say self-defense is justified under their own laws. It doesn't make it right.
3. You claim that rights are not inalienable - yet, when I looked up the word inalienable, even the dictionaries use it with reference to basic human rights.
That doesn't mean that they are real. Unalienable rights are illogical. Rights in the narrow sense of the capacity to do and the allowing of availability to do so is a different story. Those are limited and not universal, though.
Thank Gawd the scientists and lawmakers who have already written our definitions and governing documents already agree that some rights are in-alienable.
An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken away or given away.
On that we agree but I thought that you don't believe in them. Do you now?
If you deprive someone of their rights, then it has momentarily been taken away from them.
This is where you have it wrong.
The right is not taken away. The person is simply not allowed to exercise it.
Those are not the same thing. yet as shown below, you are trying to treat them as the same.
they have been denied their ability to exercise those eights, which is a restriction of liberty.
Their rights are only deprived after due process. Their liberty restrictions have been justified.
To say that someone retains their rights, while being deprived of them is logically impossible.
This comment shows that you still don't understand or appreciate the differences between being deprived of the right to exercise something and the inherent rights that they have.
A prime illustration would be the fact that a person (even a convicted murderer on death row) still has the right to kill another person in a justified act of self defense.
Yes, it asked about if they have rights or not. But you didn't get my answer at all.
They don't have the right to exist because they have no rights at all. No one person has the right to anything, even their own life. Rights don't exist in the concrete, material world. They're just an abstract, really.
They (children in the womb) don't have the right to exist because they have no rights at all. No one person has the right to anything, even their own life. Rights don't exist in the concrete, material world. They're just an abstract, really.
If I randomly and violently attack you and or one of your family members on the street... Would you have the right to defend yourself or any of them from me?
You're confusing survival with rights. Just because I don't have the right to do something doesn't mean I won't do it.
I have the right to defend myself and the right to defend my family if necessary.
I'm sure that you disagree with that because you don't agree that any rights actually exist...
But the reality of the situation is that those rights have been established (in our courts) and they are an extension of your right to (your claim to) your life and your value for the lives of your significant others.
You are correct when you see it is a survival and preservation instinct.
You just don't want to see it for the right that it is.
It's a social and mental mechanic. Whenever any great disaster strikes, rights go out the window. It is torn down as the wall it was imagined to be so that it can be seen as the pile of rubble it truly was all along. One might argue that ideas themselves exist solely because they are ideas, but I can't necessarily observe an idea as it forms in someone else's head. So my view is going to differ from others.
'Rights' aren't rights. Rights don't exist as an actual thing. So when you reduce a human down to what it is, you see the animals behind the illusion of higher morality and 'civilization'.
I'm sure I had a point, but I'm tired, this is stupid, and I'm done for the night. So fuck it.
'It's a social and mental mechanic. Whenever any great disaster strikes, rights go out the window. It is torn down as the wall it was imagined to be so that it can be seen as the pile of rubble it truly was all along.
Rights' aren't rights. Rights don't exist as an actual thing. So when you reduce a human down to what it is, you see the animals behind the illusion of higher morality and 'civilization'.
I'm sure I had a point, but I'm tired, this is stupid, and I'm done for the night. So fuck it.
This is my last on it too....
A right can not be violated unless it first exists so your own example that rights go out the window is a kind of an acknowledgment that they exist too.
It's also unnecessary to make assumptions and twist my meaning to fit your own definition of what should be. I tried to be patient but I only have so much. And when it becomes glaringly obvious that no matter what I say, the recipient is not even going to consider my viewpoint, I just give up and lump them into the rest of humanity. And I don't have high opinions about humanity.
I never twisted anything. I considered what you had to say and I asked you questions to challenge you on what you said. I would have nothing to gain by twisting your words.
