Legal and philosophical argument for contraception and abortion, please help refute

[tonyrey]

It is a source of opportunities for physical and intellectual development, creativity, adventure, exploration, appreciation of beauty, enjoyment, friendship, love and fulfilment.

Why shouldn’t it be? Man isn’t the measure of all things…

Also how does this create the inalienable right to life?*

You obviously believe in the value of truth. Otherwise you wouldn’t be asking these questions. Does it make sense to believe truth is valuable but those who can recognise the truth are valueless?

 	 		 			 				 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8336342#post8336342)

So you deny it has immense value?

I’m open to being convinced.

Do you regard your life as valueless?

My position is not nebulous, it’s non-existent. That is to say that I don’t really have a “position” as such. I am open to being convinced either way.*

To date though I don’t think you’ve provided much by way of justification to the idea that there is an inalienable human right to life.*

You have provided nothing by way of justification to the idea that there isn’t an inalienable human right to life. Nor have you given us any reason to suppose you would act as if it doesn’t exist…

Incidentally do you agree with Bohm Bawerk that this “inalienable” right should sometimes be removed.*

No. The right can never be removed but it is a lesser evil to kill a person in self-defence than let that person kill you or some one else if neither of you are posing a threat to anyone. In normal circumstances to let a person kill you is to be complicit in homicide!

 

[Candide_West]

Ethno-racial preferences are also innate, and some forms of it are acceptable: if one is looking for someone to marry, or children to adopt, no-one would fault them for preferring their own racial or ethnic group.

Such preferences only become unacceptable if they lead to persecution or social marginalization of the “other” group. And that societal rule is also uniquely human: apes think nothing of fighting and killing members of rival tribes. (Of course, we still have national sovereignty and fight wars; but we are morally conflicted about it; other species are not.)

Interesting perspective, but all you have essentially said is that humans think that humans are more important than other animals. Which is obviously true but as far as I can see that doesn’t give humans an inalienable right to life. Or for that matter justify why we should limit this right to humans only if we do consider it to be inalienable.

Again if I’m missing something then please enlighten me.

The human right to life is the most basic; if you are not alive, no other right is meaningful. As a health-related agency once said, “If you can’t breathe, nothing else matters.” It makes no sense to worry about rights at all if there is no right to life at bottom. Dead bodies have no rights or need them.

So if you want a society where rights are valued, the right to life, as a bare minimum, must be protected.

I agree that the right to life is about as basic a right as you can get. But I have to say I don’t see that this supports the idea that the right to life is inalienable, just that possession of other rights are contingent on possession of life. I suppose you could equally argue that life is not a right but rather a pre-condition for possession of rights…

Just for clarity do you believe that the human right to life is truly inalienable or that there are certain circumstances under which it no longer obtains (ie “just” wars, execution of certain criminals etc).

 

[GEddie]

Interesting perspective, but all you have essentially said is that humans think that humans are more important than other animals. Which is obviously true but as far as I can see that doesn’t give humans an inalienable right to life. Or for that matter justify why we should limit this right to humans only if we do consider it to be inalienable.

Again if I’m missing something then please enlighten me.

No, I didn’t say that. What I said is that only humans can assign value to other life While racist tendencies are part of our natural being, our modern aversion to them does not negate the fact that human life is and should be special to HUMAN morality.

You are correct that that, in itself, does not assign an inalienable right to human life. However, it does negate the idea that an inalienable right to human life is the same as racism, as you implied.

I agree that the right to life is about as basic a right as you can get. But I have to say I don’t see that this supports the idea that the right to life is inalienable, just that possession of other rights are contingent on possession of life. I suppose you could equally argue that life is not a right but rather a pre-condition for possession of rights…

You could, but that is just a word game to avoid speaking of a right to life.

The fact remains that NO rights exist if life is not a right. Dead bodies do not own property or criticize the government, etc.

Just for clarity do you believe that the human right to life is truly inalienable or that there are certain circumstances under which it no longer obtains (ie “just” wars, execution of certain criminals etc).

I’d say yes, that human life is an inalienable right. There are some limited situations where protecting one’s own life, or the existence of one’s society, will lead to the death of others, however, these situations are or should be viewed as anomalous. Hopefully we will evolve to such a point that those requirements (which date back to our chimpanzee ancestry) will become unneeded.

I also disagree with state executions. That, however, is another topic.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[Candide_West]

Why shouldn’t it be? Man isn’t the measure of all things…

Agreed, but if animal life is also immensely valuable then either you consider that animals also have a inalienable right to life. Or you consider that being immensely valuable is not sufficient to grant inalienable right to life. The former position is consistent but (in my experience at least) unusual. The latter returns us to the starting question of why humans have an inalienable right to life.

You obviously believe in the value of truth. Otherwise you wouldn’t be asking these questions. Does it make sense to believe truth is valuable but those who can recognise the truth are valueless?

Who has suggested that those who can recognise the truth are valueless? My question here is why those who believe we have an inalienable right to life believe this to be the case.

Do you regard your life as valueless?

No, I value my own life highly, but I do not consider that I have an inalienable right to life. I simply haven’t encountered a convincing argument to this effect to date.

You have provided nothing by way of justification to the idea that there isn’t an inalienable human right to life. Nor have you given us any reason to suppose you would act as if it doesn’t exist…

Nor have I attempted to, as I have explained I don’t really have a strong position on this subject. I’m interacting on this thread purely for my own edification about the point of view of those who believe that humans have an inalienable right to life. I am trying to ascertain if / how this belief is supported not trying to justify / support some other position.

No. The right can never be removed but it is a lesser evil to kill a person in self-defence than let that person kill you or some one else if neither of you are posing a threat to anyone. In normal circumstances to let a person kill you is to be complicit in homicide!

But presumably you hold the death penalty to be immoral and war equally so? Although I suppose on the above basis you could justify a purely self defense based war ie destroying opposing forces whenever they immediately and directly threatened the home population of your nation.

 

[Candide_West]

No, I didn’t say that. What I said is that only humans can assign value to other life While racist tendencies are part of our natural being, our modern aversion to them does not negate the fact that human life is and should be special to HUMAN morality.

You are correct that that, in itself, does not assign an inalienable right to human life. However, it does negate the idea that an inalienable right to human life is the same as racism, as you implied.

Apologies, I did not intend to imply that believing in an inalienable right to human life is equivalent to racism. Sorry if i caused offense. Perhaps I would have been wiser to use ageism to make my point since that generally seems to be a less emotive “-ism”.

In any case we seem to be agreed that humans believing humans to be more important doesn’t in itself assign humans an inalienable right to life.

You could, but that is just a word game to avoid speaking of a right to life.

The fact remains that NO rights exist if life is not a right. Dead bodies do not own property or criticize the government, etc.

I understand your view, but I don’t think that it’s status as a very basic right makes it inalienable.

I’d say yes, that human life is an inalienable right. There are some limited situations where protecting one’s own life, or the existence of one’s society, will lead to the death of others, however, these situations are or should be viewed as anomalous. Hopefully we will evolve to such a point that those requirements (which date back to our chimpanzee ancestry) will become unneeded.

I also disagree with state executions. That, however, is another topic.

True, that it’s a separate topic, but it is quite closely related. I guess the question for me is how if you consider that the right is inalienable (unable to be taken away or even given away) then how there can ever be a situation under which that right can be taken or given away.

 

[GEddie]

Apologies, I did not intend to imply that believing in an inalienable right to human life is equivalent to racism. Sorry if i caused offense. Perhaps I would have been wiser to use ageism to make my point since that generally seems to be a less emotive “-ism”.

That’s ok; it doesn’t work with ageism. Racism, and humano-centrism (which I take it you oppose) are comparable in that each centers on an inalterable attribute of one’s life. Ageism centers on an aspect of life that changes: one may be prejudiced against the old, but not once oneself has become old.

You don’t need to worry about offending me, it is going to take much more than this BBS to offend me. I’ve got a thick skin and getting offended is part of penance anyways.

In any case we seem to be agreed that humans believing humans to be more important doesn’t in itself assign humans an inalienable right to life.

I understand your view, but I don’t think that it’s status as a very basic right makes it inalienable.

True, that it’s a separate topic, but it is quite closely related. I guess the question for me is how if you consider that the right is inalienable (unable to be taken away or even given away) then how there can ever be a situation under which that right can be taken or given away.

It is not taken away, but comes into conflict with other’s equal right. You have the right to swing your limbs; but not against someone else’s body. They have the right to block your movements. Likewise, if someone tries to physically harm someone else, the victim’s right to life can be defended, even if the aggressor may die. But if the aggressor turns to run, the victim is not allowed to chase the aggressor down and kill them; he still has a right to life.

War is more complicated an issue. It is said that the general society has the same rights a human being does, and indeed it has more, if “powers” equal rights. But the existence of a given civil society is not the same as human life. Still, I’d say that moral values are somewhat clouded where civil states are concerned. However, some principles remain: enemies may be killed while they are fighting, but not if they surrender, for example.

And in state execution, neither human life nor societal existence is at stake. The subject is bound and incapacitated and poses no threat to anybody, so killing that person is a violation of the right to life. So, logically, my society (USA) does not truthfully hold to an inalienable right to life, just as ante-1865, it did not truthfully hold to an inalienable right to liberty. Hopefully it will ultimately see and correct the error.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[Candide_West]

That’s ok; it doesn’t work with ageism. *Racism, and humano-centrism (which I take it you oppose) are comparable in that each centers on an inalterable attribute of one’s life. *Ageism centers on an aspect of life that changes: *one may be prejudiced against the old, but not once oneself has become old.

You don’t need to worry about offending me, it is going to take much more than this BBS to offend me. *I’ve got a thick skin and getting offended is part of penance anyways.

Ok cool.*

*It is not taken away, but comes into conflict with other’s equal right. *You have the right to swing your limbs; but not against someone else’s body. *They have the right to block your movements. * Likewise, if someone tries to physically harm someone else, the victim’s right to life can be defended, even if the aggressor may die. * But if the aggressor turns to run, the victim is not allowed to chase the aggressor down and kill them; he still has a right to life.

So you appear to be saying that the right in inalienable except where it threatens the life of another. So does that mean you support abortion where the life of the mother would be endangered by the pregnancy?*

*War is more complicated an issue. *It is said that the general society has the same rights a human being does, and indeed it has more, if “powers” equal rights. *But the existence of a given civil society is not the same as human life. * *Still, I’d say that moral values are somewhat clouded where civil states are concerned. *However, some principles remain: *enemies may be killed while they are fighting, but not if they surrender, for example.

But again the above would appear to suggest that only purely defensive wars could be morally justified. So is your view that armed forces could only respond to a direct threat to the lives of citizens in their own country.

*And in state execution, neither human life nor societal existence is at stake. *The subject is bound and incapacitated and poses no threat to anybody, so killing that person is a violation of the right to life. *So, logically, my society (USA) does not truthfully hold to an inalienable right to life, just as ante-1865, it did not truthfully hold to an inalienable right to liberty. *Hopefully it will ultimately see and correct the error.

Ok, thanks for that.

I’m afraid though that my original question still stands. Is there any justification for the idea that humans have an inalienable right to life?*

This seems like a sensible starting point to determine if / when there are circumstances under which this right no longer applies.*

The answers I’ve received so far as I understand them are as follows (not I’m paraphrasing for brevity, I shall endeavour to provide accurate presentation of the arguments).

GEddie - it’s the most basic right, without life no other rights apply.*

Me - could probably be used to argue that if any right is inalienable then it ought to be the right to life but unless you have established previously that another right is inalienable then this doesn’t seem to help.

Tonyrey - life has immense value.*

Me - this doesn’t seem to provide any justification for an inalienable right to life nor a means of differentiating between a human right to life and an ape right to life.

Bohm Bawerk - it’s a brute fact (except in certain situations). Thus there doesn’t need to be a justification.*

Me - this position seems inconsistent in that if it is a brute fact then there is no way of justifying any exceptions to the inalienable right. So that means killing in “just” wars is wrong, as is execution of criminals, as is killing in self defence or defence of another… Etc.

 

[jochoa]

I’m afraid though that my original question still stands. Is there any justification for the idea that humans have an inalienable right to life?*

This seems like a sensible starting point to determine if / when there are circumstances under which this right no longer applies.

I would like to offer an understanding.

First we need to consider what are the governing laws that establish the right.
There is the Natural Law: That which is living has the opportunity/right to life.
There is the Law of Freedom: The right to exist, think, and act without hindrance.
There is the Law of Patience and Kindness: Killing is not patient nor kind.
There are the Principles of Peace and Happiness: In the process of killing life, peace and happiness are lost. Though mainly for the victim, but also for the murderer.

Second, we need to consider what makes human life greater than other earthly beings.
We must begin by comparing species as a whole, and not as individuals, because each species works together to sustain life as a species.
The consideration of the natural desire found in humans to seek something greater than worldly and material pursuits is a factor of superiority in desires.
The consideration of the simple fact that we, of many diverse backgrounds, are communicating through a highly complex and integrated system designed by us, across the entire planet, in near instantaneous interaction, should be enough for anyone to realize that the human species is superior in knowledge, understanding, and consideration.

Since humans are the superior species, the inalienable right to life is justified for humans.

Thanks for the excellent thoughts and perspectives. You have helped me grow in understanding! I look forward to hearing your thoughts and considerations.

 

[Candide_West]

I would like to offer an understanding.

Hi jochoa, nice to meet you.

*First we need to consider what are the governing laws that establish the right.

Ok, just for clarity, where do you take these laws from? I’m not saying I disagree with them as useful principles, but I don’t know of anywhere that they are established as laws as such.*

*There is the Natural Law: That which is living has the opportunity/right to life.

Fair enough, this would appear to apply to all living creatures to an equal extent. Which is somewhat problematic in truth since creatures kill each other all the time in nature. It appears that in order to uphold natural law we ought to prevent not only humans killing each other and other animals but also animals from killing other animals.*

But this would in fact be in conflict with nature itself and we’d probably end up causing immense destruction if we tried… I find it a little difficult to determine how this law can ever actually be upheld, is there more to this law than described above?*

*There is the Law of Freedom: The right to exist, think, and act without hindrance.

Ok, again as a guiding principle I agree with this. But in establishing a set of laws (like this one) we are inherently applying restrictions (hinderances) to freedom. Hence again this seems to require a little more nuance.

*There is the Law of Patience and Kindness: Killing is not patient nor kind.

Not sure about patience, but I’ve personally had to put down a couple of animals in my lifetime because they were so badly injured or ill that I do consider killing those animals to be an act of kindness. I would struggle with a law which suggested I would have been kinder to allow the animal in question hours or days of additional suffering before their inevitable death.

*There are the Principles of Peace and Happiness: In the process of killing life, peace and happiness are lost. Though mainly for the victim, but also for the murderer.

Generally agree, killing anything is not a pleasant experience. But in reality it is common across most species. Either in self defence, competition for food, hunting, etc.

*Second, we need to consider what makes human life greater than other earthly beings.
We must begin by comparing species as a whole, and not as individuals, because each species works together to sustain life as a species.

Sounds fair although setting standards may be problematic.*

*The consideration of the natural desire found in humans to seek something greater than worldly and material pursuits is a factor of superiority in desires.

By our standards certainly. I don’t suppose you’d get any other member of the animal kingdom to agree. I suspect that most forms of life prefer their own.*

Imagine a scenario where a vastly superior alien civilisation came to earth and attacked us to enable themselves to survive. Would we simply say “well they’re a superior species so our lives are less valuable than theirs”. So we should die so they can live. Or would we fight for our own survival?

*The consideration of the simple fact that we, of many diverse backgrounds, are communicating through a highly complex and integrated system designed by us, across the entire planet, in near instantaneous interaction, should be enough for anyone to realize that the human species is superior in knowledge, understanding, and consideration.

Indeed we are certainly superior in those aspects. Which makes a good case for humans being superior by human standards.*

*Since humans are the superior species, the inalienable right to life is justified for humans.

This is the crux of the issue I guess. But the question has just evolved slightly. What is it about being a superior species (by human standards) that gives humans an inalienable right to life.*

I suppose the argument could be made that since (by our standards at least) humans are a superior species then if any species has an inalienable right to life then it ought to be us. But without establishing in advance that some species have this inalienable right then this doesn’t seem to help.

Also if you take a case such as the alien invasion described above, would our inalienable right be automatically passed on to their species once they arrived as we would no longer be the most advanced species around?*

*Thanks for the excellent thoughts and perspectives. You have helped me grow in understanding! I look forward to hearing your thoughts and considerations.

My pleasure, was interesting reading your thoughts as well.*

Incidentally where do you stand on the various scenarios where a “right to life” is challenged? For example do you think capital punishment is acceptable? What about war? What about the thread subject, abortion? What about killing in self defence or defence of others? Are all of these totally unacceptable? If not what circumstances do you find under which they are acceptable?

This seems to be quite a complex issue all around and one I’m interested in exploring further.*

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey - life has immense value.*

There is no obvious reason why we should deny an ape to the right to life. Do you have any reason for rejecting an inalienable right to life?

 

[jochoa]

Ok, just for clarity, where do you take these laws from? I’m not saying I disagree with them as useful principles, but I don’t know of anywhere that they are established as laws as such.

…This seems to be quite a complex issue all around and one I’m interested in exploring further.

In order to recognize Absolute Law, one must fathom the Absolutes of the Universe (things that existed before and without the need for the universe/space/time. → John 1:1

The only things to be absolute:
→ the thing/being which is the System/”Body” of Rules/Laws of Everything. (The Word - Son)
→ the thing/being which caused the Universe, set the Universe in motion, and started time as we know it, is the source/”possessor” of Everything of the Universe (Essence - God)
→ the thing/”mindset” that is Perfect Love (Patience, Peace, Kindness, Happiness, Motivation, Energy - Father).
→ the thing/being that makes/”communes” the Rules/Laws with the Perfect Love (Holy Spirit)
Each thing is distinct, co-existing, and completely necessary to complete the Creation of the Universe and the Free-Willed Beings, designed to find Perfect Love, of the Universe. The complete being of all three things is called God, and God is Absolute.

Once you accept these Absolutes, then you can recognize the Inalienable Right to Life:
Although all living beings will strive to survive, the free-willed being of the universe, that seeks something greater than the universe/immaterial/Perfect Love, will be the being granted an inalienable, unable to be taken away by the “possessor,” right to life - Humans happen to be this being.

This is an Excellent Discussion, which has led me to great depths of consideration, perspective and understanding! I hope my incomplete, and subject to error, understandings of Truth and Law are comprehensible and will ultimately lead you to study and accept the Doctrines of the Catholic Faith. I will follow up with responses to your other considerations soon, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[jochoa]

Incidentally where do you stand on the various scenarios where a “right to life” is challenged? For example do you think capital punishment is acceptable? What about war? What about the thread subject, abortion? What about killing in self defence or defence of others? Are all of these totally unacceptable? If not what circumstances do you find under which they are acceptable?

The conflicting nature of these questions for any level of government, from the household to a nation, under the Authority of God lies in the inability to righteously and effectively admonish and punish wrongdoers.

In the Law of Kindness, capital punishment, war, abortion, and killing in self-defense by the self is not acceptable as a means to govern/care for others as demonstrated by The Leader, Jesus Christ.
In the Law of Patience, capital punishment, war, abortion, and killing in self-defense by others is forgivable as demonstrated by The Leader, Jesus Christ.
Within the Laws, capital punishment is necessary (“Eye” for an “Eye”) as demonstrated by The Leader, Jesus Christ. He is the Eye for the Eye of all of mankind’s wrongdoing.

Therefore, my stance is as follows: Although Capital Punishment and Killing for wrongdoing is necessary for free-willed beings, without all-knowledge, to come to the Light, The Killing, Punishment, and Revelation of the Light has been Satisfied in the Crucifixion of Jesus. Therefore, I will work on mastering Kindness, Patience, and spreading the message to learn from Jesus and His Church, so we may find the Greatest Peace, Happiness, and Energy sooner, than later.

My Thoughts Specifically Regarding the Thread Title
Although it is valid on the premises of the law of the land, and the “philosophy of peace and happiness for an individual” that does not ‘want’ a child. It is incomplete and inferior in consideration to the Law of Love, and the Laws/Philosophy of Peace and Happiness for All.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[Candide_West]

There is no obvious reason why we should deny an ape to the right to life.*

Ok, so would you consider that apes have a inalienable right to life?

Do you have any reason for rejecting an inalienable right to life?

No, not really. As I said my position on this is pretty neutral really. I’m just trying to find you if an inalienable right to life for humans is justified and if so how.

 

[Candide_West]

In order to recognize Absolute Law, one must fathom the Absolutes of the Universe (things that existed before and without the need for the universe/space/time.*

Ok, I fear that fathoming the absolutes of the universe may be somewhat beyond me but let’s see how we go.

The only things to be absolute:
→ the thing/being which is the System/”Body” of Rules/Laws of Everything. (The Word - Son)
→ the thing/being which caused the Universe, set the Universe in motion, and started time as we know it, is the source/”possessor” of Everything of the Universe (Essence - God)
→ the thing/”mindset” that is Perfect Love (Patience, Peace, Kindness, Happiness, Motivation, Energy - Father).
→ the thing/being that makes/”communes” the Rules/Laws with the Perfect Love (Holy Spirit)
Each thing is distinct, co-existing, and completely necessary to complete the Creation of the Universe and the Free-Willed Beings, designed to find Perfect Love, of the Universe. The complete being of all three things is called God, and God is Absolute.

Once you accept these Absolutes, then you can recognize the Inalienable Right to Life:

Ok, so am I to take from the above that an inalienable right to life can only be justified if you start out believing in a God?

As I’m sure you’ve noticed I’m not religious so I may not reach the same conclusion in the end. That said I was raised Christian so I hope I’ll be able to follow the logic at least.*

*Although all living beings will strive to survive, the free-willed being of the universe, that seeks something greater than the universe/immaterial/Perfect Love, will be the being granted an inalienable, unable to be taken away by the “possessor,” right to life - Humans happen to be this being.

Ok, however why would simply being free-willed grant an inalienable right to life. Could you explain the connection? I’ve tried thinking about this either with or without the existence of a God / creator. But still don’t see a connection. Sorry if I’m being dense here.*

Also, would you consider that any other life forms - artificial intelligence, aliens etc which have free will to also have an inalienable right to life?*

*This is an Excellent Discussion, which has led me to great depths of consideration, perspective and understanding! I hope my incomplete, and subject to error, understandings of Truth and Law are comprehensible and will ultimately lead you to study and accept the Doctrines of the Catholic Faith. I will follow up with responses to your other considerations soon, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Great, more replies below.

The conflicting nature of these questions for any level of government, from the household to a nation, under the Authority of God lies in the inability to righteously and effectively admonish and punish wrongdoers.

Indeed it has always been a challenge to identify a suitable response to crimes.

*In the Law of Kindness, capital punishment, war, abortion, and killing in self-defense by the self is not acceptable as a means to govern/care for others as demonstrated by The Leader, Jesus Christ.

This seems to be saying that killing people under any circumstances is wrong, whether capital punishment, self-defence… Etc. Have I understood you correctly there?*

*In the Law of Patience, capital punishment, war, abortion, and killing in self-defense by others is forgivable as demonstrated by The Leader, Jesus Christ.

So, are you saying it’s wrong but forgivable?*

*Within the Laws, capital punishment is necessary (“Eye” for an “Eye”) as demonstrated by The Leader, Jesus Christ. He is the Eye for the Eye of all of mankind’s wrongdoing.

Apologies, but I’m not aware of a law which requires retribution (eye-for-an-eye). This seems to conflict with principles such as forgiveness. Surely “turn the other cheek” would be more the way put forward by Jesus?

*Therefore, my stance is as follows: Although Capital Punishment and Killing for wrongdoing is necessary for free-willed beings, without all-knowledge, to come to the Light, The Killing, *Punishment, and Revelation of the Light has been Satisfied in the Crucifixion of Jesus…

Sorry not sure if I’ve followed you correctly here. Are you saying that capital punishment is necessary because we are not omniscient? Or unnecessary because of Jesus’ sacrifice? Or have I misunderstood completely?

*My Thoughts Specifically Regarding the Thread Title
Although it is valid on the premises of the law of the land, and the “philosophy of peace and happiness for an individual” that does not ‘want’ a child. It is incomplete and inferior in consideration to the Law of Love, and the Laws/Philosophy of Peace and Happiness for All.

Sorry, again I don’t know the Law of Love either. Could you explain?

The above statement seems to only consider the case where a parent (mother presumably) does not ‘want’ a child. Would your stance remain the same in other circumstances for example where the mother was raped? Or where the mother has a medical condition and is unlikely to survive the pregnancy?

*I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Thanks, interesting chat.*

 

[tonyrey]

Ok, so would you consider that apes have a inalienable right to life?

Yes and I am not the only one:

"In what is thought to be the first time a national legislature has granted such rights to animals, the Spanish parliament’s environmental committee voted to approve resolutions committing the country to the Great Apes Project, designed by scientists and philosophers who say that humans’ closest biological relatives also deserve rights. The resolution, adopted with crossparty support, calls on the Government to promote the Great Apes Project internationally and ensure the protection of apes from “abuse, torture and death”.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4220884.ece

No, not really. As I said my position on this is pretty neutral really. I’m just trying to find you if an inalienable right to life for humans is justified and if so how.

I have pointed out that life is a source of opportunities for physical and intellectual development, creativity, adventure, exploration, appreciation of beauty, enjoyment, friendship, love and fulfilment. The onus is on you to give a good reason why anyone should be deprived of those opportunities…

 

[jochoa]

Ok, I fear that fathoming the absolutes of the universe may be somewhat beyond me but let’s see how we go.

I apologize for being complicated. I will work harder on simplicity…and after heavy consideration, please consider my developed understanding.

An Inalienable Right is a right that is unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
If one considers the limits of a Governed Country, then the government sets the rights and for whom they apply.
According to the Constitution - “We the People of the United States…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” In other words: All future generations of American citizens have the security of Liberty. Unfortunately, I can see how “future generations of American citizens” could be perceived both embryo inclusion and with strategic interpretation embryo exclusion.
If one considers the limits of the Universe, heavy consideration must be given to the absolutes of the universe.

Ok, so am I to take from the above that an inalienable right to life can only be justified if you start out believing in a God?

Somewhat…I would state it more so as, The Absolute Inalienable Right to Life can only be known, once one knows Jesus Christ.

As I’m sure you’ve noticed I’m not religious so I may not reach the same conclusion in the end. That said I was raised Christian so I hope I’ll be able to follow the logic at least.

Definitely understandable. I greatly appreciate your thoughts, for you have helped me grow greatly in perspective, consideration, and understanding.

Ok, however why would simply being free-willed grant an inalienable right to life. Could you explain the connection? I’ve tried thinking about this either with or without the existence of a God / creator. But still don’t see a connection. Sorry if I’m being dense here.

No apologies necessary. I am sorry for my lack of clarity. Please consider this: Being free-willed and desiring peace and happiness for the self and others creates an inalienable right to life. Free-will is necessary because without free-will, there are no rights. Desiring peace and happiness for the self and others is necessary because if the being wants to harm the self or others, there will be no regard for the right.

Also, would you consider that any other life forms - artificial intelligence, aliens etc which have free will to also have an inalienable right to life?

If the AI and aliens desire peace and happiness for itself and others, then definitely.

This seems to be saying that killing people under any circumstances is wrong, whether capital punishment, self-defence… Etc. Have I understood you correctly there?

So, are you saying it’s wrong but forgivable?

Have you seen, “The Passion of The Christ,” as directed by Mel Gibson? What are your thoughts on Jesus’ Patience and Kindness, namely forgiveness, willingness, obedience to worldly authority, lack of anger, politeness, respect of the inalienable right to life?

Apologies, but I’m not aware of a law which requires retribution (eye-for-an-eye). This seems to conflict with principles such as forgiveness. Surely “turn the other cheek” would be more the way put forward by Jesus?

Although the Law of Eye for an Eye is located in Exodus 21:22-25, and you are correct, “turn the other cheek” is accurate, to understanding how both are applicable at the same time require deep consideration. Instead of trying to understand all of that, here are the simple considerations I began with:

1. I saw Jesus being unjustly beaten and killed, and I noticed He was very patient and kind and seemed very peaceful.
2. I recognized that my family, friends, and self were losing peace, and we were not experiencing anything this bad.
3. Therefore, I sought to learn the Patience and Kindness of Jesus to obtain the Peace and Happiness of Jesus.

Sorry not sure if I’ve followed you correctly here. Are you saying that capital punishment is necessary because we are not omniscient? Or unnecessary because of Jesus’ sacrifice? Or have I misunderstood completely?

I am sorry, my current understanding cannot explain it better. The answers are yes, both actually, and not at all, however, it may seem contradictory.

Sorry, again I don’t know the Law of Love either. Could you explain?

Unfortunately I am currently unable to explain it with greater simplicity and clarity than I currently have. However, I can recommend you to the Initial Teaching of the Catholic Faith → CCC #1

The above statement seems to only consider the case where a parent (mother presumably) does not ‘want’ a child. Would your stance remain the same in other circumstances for example where the mother was raped? Or where the mother has a medical condition and is unlikely to survive the pregnancy?

I have a few questions to help me answer this question:
What is my relation to the mother in the scenario? Am I the mother, husband to the mother, father to the mother, friend to the mother, or neighbor, whom is most likely not intimately related, to the mother? If I am not the mother, can you describe the mother’s stance on abortion?

Thanks, interesting chat.

Likewise! I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

 

[Candide_West]

Yes and I am not the only one:

"In what is thought to be the first time a national legislature has granted *such rights to animals, the Spanish parliament’s environmental committee *voted to approve resolutions committing the country to the Great Apes *Project, designed by scientists and philosophers who say that humans’ *closest biological relatives also deserve rights. * *The resolution, adopted with crossparty support, calls on the Government to *promote the Great Apes Project internationally and ensure the protection of apes from “abuse, torture and death”.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4220884.ece

Interesting, thanks for that.*

Out of interest how much of the animal kingdom do you consider to have an inalienable right to life? Just apes? All primates? All mammals? All animals? All living things? Just curious where you draw the line (if you draw one at all) and why?

Just for clarity am I to take from the above that to you human and ape lives have equal value? In other words since both have an inalienable right to life you would be unable to take the life of either to save the other (kill an ape to save a human or kill a human to save an ape)?

*I have pointed out that life is a source of opportunities for *physical and intellectual *development, creativity, adventure, *exploration, appreciation of *beauty, enjoyment, friendship, love and *fulfilment. The onus is on you to give a good reason why anyone should be deprived of those opportunities…

Er… I’m afraid you’ve lost me here, I’ve got no desire to justify killing anyone. Nor do I think I have suggested I do. As I have said “I’m just trying to find you if an inalienable right to life for humans is justified and if so how”.

To date little justification has been provided. Simply saying “life is valuable” does not, at least as far as I can determine, lead to “therefore humans have an inalienable right to life”. If there is a causal connection between the two then could you explain it please?

 

[Candide_West]

I apologize for being complicated. I will work harder on simplicity…and after heavy consideration, please consider my developed understanding.

Okay dokey

*An Inalienable Right is a right that is unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Agreed.

*If one considers the limits of a Governed Country, then the government sets the rights and for whom they apply.

Ok, but as far as I’m aware no countries laws accord humans an inalienable right to life.

*According to the Constitution - “We the People of the United States…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” In other words: All future generations of American citizens have the security of Liberty…

Ok, but again there is no mention of an inalienable right to life in the above, nor as far as I am aware (please correct me if I’m wrong) elsewhere in the constitution.*
*

*Somewhat…I would state it more so as, The Absolute Inalienable Right to Life can only be known, once one knows Jesus Christ.

Ok, so I’ll bear that in mind when you provide your explanation.*

No apologies necessary. I am sorry for my lack of clarity. Please consider this: Being free-willed and desiring peace and happiness for the self and others creates an inalienable right to life.

This again seems to be the keystone. How does “being free-willed and desiring peace and happiness for the self and others” create an inalienable right to life.*

Also with reference to the thread subject this seems problematic since at an early embryonic stage at least a foetus does not (at least as far as we can tell) either have free will (the cells can only divide and copy) and the foetus is not aware of concepts such as peace, happiness, desire, self, others etc. So the above justification of an inalienable right to life would not appear to apply to a foetus.*

*Free-will is necessary because without free-will, there are no rights. Desiring peace and happiness for the self and others is necessary because if the being wants to harm the self or others, there will be no regard for the right.

Ok, but I’m afraid this still doesn’t establish that the right to life is inalienable, just that certain things are necessary for it to exist. Could you draw the connection from the above to “therefore humans have an inalienable right to life”.

Also since you said “without free will there are no rights” do you then consider that animals have no rights? Or do you consider that animals have free will?*

*If the AI and aliens desire peace and happiness for itself and others, then definitely.

Ok.*

*Have you seen, “The Passion of The Christ,” as directed by Mel Gibson? What are your thoughts on Jesus’ Patience and Kindness, namely forgiveness, willingness, obedience to worldly authority, lack of anger, politeness, respect of the inalienable right to life?

I have as it happens, I have to say that in general I have found the stories from the bible about Jesus to reflect a much vastly superior morality than that shown by various churches down through the ages. But we digress.

Did I understand your position correctly in my previous post? That you view killing people as always wrong but forgivable?

Although the Law of Eye for an Eye is located inExodus 21:22-25

, and you are correct, “turn the other cheek” is accurate, to understanding how both are applicable at the same time require deep consideration. Instead of trying to understand all of that, here are the simple considerations I began with:

Ok. I have to say that back in my Christian days I spent a lot of time trying to reconcile the two but eventually accepted that they are contradictory and thus cannot be reconciled. Either one or the other may be right, it cannot be both. At least as far as I can determine.

1. I saw Jesus being unjustly beaten and killed, and I noticed He was very patient and kind and seemed very peaceful.
2. I recognized that my family, friends, and self were losing peace, and we were not experiencing anything this bad.
3. Therefore, I sought to learn the Patience and Kindness of Jesus to obtain the Peace and Happiness of Jesus.

Fair enough, sounds like a good policy.*

*I am sorry, my current understanding cannot explain it better. The answers are yes, both actually, and not at all, however, it may seem contradictory.

So you are saying that capital punishment is both necessary and unnecessary? This sounds like contradictory doublethink to me. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood?

*Unfortunately I am currently unable to explain it with greater simplicity and clarity *than I currently have. However, I can recommend you to the Initial Teaching of the Catholic Faith.

Unless I’ve missed a post or part of a post somewhere I don’t think you’ve explained the Law of Love at all to date. Could you direct me to where if I have missed it please?*

*I have a few questions to help me answer this question:
What is my relation to the mother in the scenario? …

Interesting, I hadn’t considered that your relationship to the individual would make a difference to your stance on whether abortion would be acceptable or not. Could you explain why it would make a difference?*

By all means pick any relationship from the above, or better yet a couple. I’d be interested to see how / why your view changes depending on who asks.

 

[jochoa]

Ok, but again there is no mention of an inalienable right to life in the above, nor as far as I am aware (please correct me if I’m wrong) elsewhere in the constitution.

Fair enough. I apologize for attempting to argue ‘governmental’ law. I did not mean to cross the paths of government law and God’s Law.

This again seems to be the keystone. How does “being free-willed and desiring peace and happiness for the self and others” create an inalienable right to life.

If beings have ‘free’-will, there is either Absolute Inalienable Right to ‘free’-will by The Possessor or no possessor of will. Since the will is free, it can choose to act as possessor of other ‘free’-wills. If the will desires peace and happiness for the self and others, a relative Absolute Inalienable right to life is created. This relative-Absolute protects the self and others from harm from the self, but not from others.

Also with reference to the thread subject this seems problematic since at an early embryonic stage at least a foetus does not (at least as far as we can tell) either have free will (the cells can only divide and copy) and the foetus is not aware of concepts such as peace, happiness, desire, self, others etc. So the above justification of an inalienable right to life would not appear to apply to a foetus.

Please reference my earlier statement: “We must begin by comparing species as a whole, and not as individuals, because each species works together to sustain life as a species.” Also, here is a development in my understanding: Since the Absolute Inalienable Right to Free-Will or lack of possessor grants the act of possessing other beings, one ‘free’-will could claim all fetuses as under its possession, and establish or lift the Inalienable right to life for its possessions. Therefore, the question of this topic should extend itself to what are the various purposes for fighting for birth versus fighting for death.

Ok, but I’m afraid this still doesn’t establish that the right to life is inalienable, just that certain things are necessary for it to exist. Could you draw the connection from the above to “therefore humans have an inalienable right to life”.

Please note that as most currently know it, inalienable rights are relative, subject to the being that acts as possessor. If we want to recognize Absolute Law, we must consider the Absolutes before the Universe began.

Also since you said “without free will there are no rights” do you then consider that animals have no rights? Or do you consider that animals have free will?

Hmmmm…very interesting questions! I’ve got one for you in response because I am still pondering my answer. Would animals have rights without humans? I think it is safe to say that these “animals” would be governed by Survival of the Fittest Concepts.

I have as it happens, I have to say that in general I have found the stories from the bible about Jesus to reflect a much vastly superior morality than that shown by various churches down through the ages.

I have had similar thoughts in years past, then I began studying the Principles/Catechisms of the Doctrines/The Leader of the Catholic Church (not the way its followers/learners live their personal lives), and have reaped incredible blessings of Peace, Happiness, and Energy, for aligning my love according to The Leader’s!

Did I understand your position correctly in my previous post? That you view killing people as always wrong but forgivable?

Let me try to explain in a gentle scenario. A father knows playing around while driving will almost always lead to an accident, but his teenager is unable to process and follow all the cautions and loses control to playing around while driving. The father knows it as wrong to play around while driving and will not do it. However, the teen also knows it is wrong, but loses control and wrecks the car. The father will forgive his child, for he knew not what he did.

Ok. I have to say that back in my Christian days I spent a lot of time trying to reconcile the two but eventually accepted that they are contradictory and thus cannot be reconciled. Either one or the other may be right, it cannot be both. At least as far as I can determine.

I was definitely in the same mindset as you several years ago.

Fair enough, sounds like a good policy.

It has saved, purified, and strengthened in peace, happiness, and energy all of my relationships. (Faith, Marriage, Parenting, Employee, Teacher, Family Member, Friend)

So you are saying that capital punishment is both necessary and unnecessary? This sounds like contradictory doublethink to me. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood?

Yes, but based on two different foundations: Ignorance and Eye for Eye.

Unless I’ve missed a post or part of a post somewhere I don’t think you’ve explained the Law of Love at all to date. Could you direct me to where if I have missed it please?

You are correct. Please consider the following simplified understanding:
Love is Patience and Kindness.
Love is God.
God is Peace and Happiness.
Therefore, Patience achieves Peace and Kindness achieves Happiness.

partial Law of Love (partial CCC #1) - Please note that this is far from complete, and some extensions are intentionally left out for simplicity. This is the first time I have attempted this form of simple substitution, please be gentle in critiques.
…at every time and in every place, (Love) draws close to man. God’s Word calls man to seek/desire (Peace and Happiness), to know/understand (Patience and Kindness)/experience (Peace and Happiness), to (be Patient and Kind) for (The Creator) with all (Interactions).

to be cont…

 

[jochoa]

Interesting, I hadn’t considered that your relationship to the individual would make a difference to your stance on whether abortion would be acceptable or not. Could you explain why it would make a difference?

Because the Perfect Balance of Patience and Kindness is one of great forgiveness towards others, yet zero tolerance towards the self.

By all means pick any relationship from the above, or better yet a couple. I’d be interested to see how / why your view changes depending on who asks.

I haven’t considered this deeply (please be gentle on critiques), however let’s assume that if I am not the mother, the mother is seeking an abortion due to extreme situations.
If I were…
the Mother, I would protect my child’s Inalienable Right to Life. I would gladly die for my child.
the Doctor, I would protect the child’s Right by not servicing (granted she wouldn’t be seeking me to begin), I would also share that she is in a difficult situation, whatever she decides, she is not to blame, and may she find Peace sooner than later.
the Dad and/or Husband, I would share that the fears of death, and the pains of rape are beyond my comprehension, and therefore will not blame her and will always do my best to love her. I would heavily encourage the positives of fighting for life and letting nature take its course. I would offer to take full responsibility of the baby. However, I would not offer assistance to/for the services because there is a better Way. After the abortion, I would heavily focus on how have I not lead my wife to greater patience, kindness, peace, and happiness, and would try to reconcile my failures as a Husband/Dad.
the friend of the Mother, I would share that the fears of death, and the pains of rape are beyond my comprehension, and therefore will not blame her. I would encourage the benefits of focusing on Jesus throughout her struggles, and offer to share all that I have learned about patience, kindness, peace, and happiness.

Excellent Questions! Thank you very much for your time and consideration! I have grown tremendously in understanding and perspective! I look forward to hearing your thoughts! I especially like the rights of animals questions.