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

[Candide_West]

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.

No worries, in truth a countries law wouldn’t be in itself a justification anyway (except at a very shallow “because they tell me so” kinda level). It would just move the question back a step.*

If beings have ‘free’-will, there is either Absolute Inalienable Right to ‘free’-will by The Possessor or no possessor of will.

I think this is a false dichotomy, there could of course be free will but limitations on that right. For example we could say that that people are free to do as they please except where their choice would negatively affect others.*

Incidentally an inalienable right to free will would also seem to conflict with an inalienable right to life (in some cases) for example where one chap wants to kill another. Either one must lose his right to do as he pleases, or the other must lose their life.*

*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.

Again this seems to be the key, why does having free will grant an inalienable right to life. I really cannot see a connection between the two. Perhaps I’m just being dense?

To me you might as well have said “if the bring has opposable thumbs an inalienable right to life is created”.

Also, just for clarity I’m assuming here that “*a relative Absolute Inalienable right to life” is the same as an inalienable right to life? Is that correct?

*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.”

Ahh, I’d forgotten about that one. But this again would appear to mean that we can’t treat individuals differently to each other. Ie - either all humans always have an inalienable right to life, or none do.*

Equally it invalidates the justification given since the requirement of being free willed or desiring peace and happiness are irrelevant. Simply “being human” is enough. For example a person who desires nothing more than destruction and death for everyone would still have an inalienable right to life based on the fact that he’s human.*

*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.

? Afraid you’ve lost me here, how could “one ‘free’-will could claim all fetuses as under its possession”?

*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.

Perhaps this is getting a little esoteric for me. Surely if an inalienable right to life is one which cannot be taken or given away, then how can it be subject to the acts of the possessor?

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 think I agree with you on this one, “rights” are a human concept. It only really applies with humans around.*

*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!

Great.

*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, so again you appear to be saying that killing is wrong but forgivable. Have I got that right?

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

Ok, so could you advise how you resolved the apparent contradiction?*

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

Great, definitely sounds like a good policy then.

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

Ok, if something is unnecessary then that means it’s not necessary. It’s what the word means. So to say that something is both necessary and unnecessary is a contradiction. It cannot be true.*

 

[Candide_West]

*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.

Ok, obviously I have different views but that’s irrelevant for now.

*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.

Ok, no worries.

*…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).

Ok, that sounds more like a description of a situation or a statement of position rather than a law as such. In any case I’m not sure how this law is relevant to the subject at hand?*

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

Not sure I agree with you here, surely this would be prideful, implying superiority because you set perfection as your own standard (in ignorance of your own failings) but set a lower standard for others.*

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…

It appears as far as I can tell that in all situations you would consider that abortion to be wrong. Interesting.

Although I do note the assumption in the above that the baby would survive, out of interest would it make a difference if the baby would die as well? Surely allowing something which would result in your own death to no benefit for anyone is a form of suicide?*

 

[jochoa]

I think this is a false dichotomy, there could of course be free will but limitations on that right. For example we could say that that people are free to do as they please except where their choice would negatively affect others.

Regardless of God’s Existence, Free Will is Fact. Although restrictions, guidelines and punishments can be enforced on Free Will, the only way to ‘seemingly’ stop free will is to kill the life. Therefore, the concept of a right to life, without consideration for God, is at best Relative, based on perspective of the Free Will.

Incidentally an inalienable right to free will would also seem to conflict with an inalienable right to life (in some cases) for example where one chap wants to kill another. Either one must lose his right to do as he pleases, or the other must lose their life.

I think the concept you are overlooking is perspective because you are correct in your analysis, but not complete. Consider Jesus’ Crucifixion: Just as the people killed Him, He could have killed the people. In this event, the people acted as Jesus’ possessor and took His Life (No Right to Life). On the other hand, Jesus is the Possessor of the people and fulfilled an Inalienable Right to Life. Jesus did not kill himself, nor did He kill His people.

Again this seems to be the key, why does having free will grant an inalienable right to life. I really cannot see a connection between the two. Perhaps I’m just being dense?

Hmmm…I think I have got a better explanation. Having free will and willing patience and kindness to others and the self grants an Inalienable right to life.

Also, just for clarity I’m assuming here that “*a relative Absolute Inalienable right to life” is the same as an inalienable right to life? Is that correct?

Yes. It is Absolutely Inalienable by possessors who will it.

? Afraid you’ve lost me here, how could “one ‘free’-will could claim all fetuses as under its possession”?

The same way a murderer claims ownership of its free willed victim.

Perhaps this is getting a little esoteric for me. Surely if an inalienable right to life is one which cannot be taken or given away, then how can it be subject to the acts of the possessor?

I apologize for lack of clarity. I am meaning - Acting Possessor. Similar to Acting Manager - the temporary manager under the Manager.

I think I agree with you on this one, “rights” are a human concept. It only really applies with humans around.

Could this be used as justification of Moral Superiority found in Humans?

Ok, so again you appear to be saying that killing is wrong but forgivable. Have I got that right?

How do you define wrong?

Ok, so could you advise how you resolved the apparent contradiction?

Simply stated, a solution lies in perspective. We as ignorant people, incapable of issuing perfectly just punishments, are to be fully forgiving. God is to handle Judgment because He is All knowing and capable of issuing Perfectly Just Punishments.

Great, definitely sounds like a good policy then.

‘Absolutely’ The Greatest!

Ok, if something is unnecessary then that means it’s not necessary. It’s what the word means. So to say that something is both necessary and unnecessary is a contradiction. It cannot be true.

I hope my adjusted response was clearer.

Ok, that sounds more like a description of a situation or a statement of position rather than a law as such. In any case I’m not sure how this law is relevant to the subject at hand?

Please consider this explanation: Just as a ball falls to/‘seeks’ the ground when let go in mid-air according to the Laws of Gravity, a human ‘seeks’ peace when placed in a state of being out-of-peace according to the Laws of Love.

Not sure I agree with you here, surely this would be prideful, implying superiority because you set perfection as your own standard (in ignorance of your own failings) but set a lower standard for others.

Please note that I use the Doctrines of the Catholic Church to guide and develop my understanding. These are not personal standards, these are a collective and accepted standards of Men and Women over the Course of Human History, based on The Perfector of Faith.

It appears as far as I can tell that in all situations you would consider that abortion to be wrong. Interesting.

To place this in a more optimistic perspective: Abortion of a Human is never the Best Option, therefore, the question becomes why/how are we not doing what is Best?

Although I do note the assumption in the above that the baby would survive, out of interest would it make a difference if the baby would die as well? Surely allowing something which would result in your own death to no benefit for anyone is a form of suicide?*

When are you assuming the baby will die? Miscarriage is separate from abortion. If you are saying the baby will die some time after birth, then I think let life strive to survive naturally.

Excellent discussion, my friend! I hope you have a good idea of how grateful I am of your kindness to share perspective! I look forward to your thoughts!

 

[Candide_West]

Regardless of God’s Existence, Free Will is Fact. Although restrictions, guidelines and punishments can be enforced on Free Will, the only way to ‘seemingly’ stop free will is to kill the life

No, you said that there is either an absolute inalienable RIGHT to free will or the person is not alive. I said that this is a false dichotomy because you can restrict free will without killing the person. In reality we can and do restrict peoples free will without killing them all the time

*I think the concept you are overlooking is perspective because you are correct in your analysis, but not complete. Consider Jesus’ Crucifixion: Just as the people killed Him, He could have killed the people. In this event, the people acted as Jesus’ possessor and took His Life (No Right to Life).

Right, so you appear to agree with me that an inalienable right to free will would conflict with an inalienable right to life. The biblical example you cited demonstrates this quite clearly - people exercised their free will and executed someone.

*Hmmm…I think I have got a better explanation. Having free will and willing patience and kindness to others and the self grants an Inalienable right to life.

Sorry but that is not an explanation, it’s an assertion. As I said you might as well say “having opposable thumbs and four fingers grants an inalienable right to life”. If you wish to make it an explanation then you’ll need to show how and why “Having free will and willing patience and kindness to others grants an inalienable right to life”.*

That’s what I’ve been asking - How an inalienable right to life is justified.

Yes. It is Absolutely Inalienable by possessors who will it.

Ok, what about possessors who don’t will it?*

*The same way a murderer claims ownership of its free willed victim.

I wouldn’t say that a murderer claims ownership of a victim. He just kills them. Again this doesn’t help, how could someone “claim possession” of all foestus’?*

*I apologize for lack of clarity. I am meaning - Acting Possessor. Similar to Acting Manager - the temporary manager under the Manager.

? Afraid you’ve lost me altogether here. Let’s try again. If a right is unable to be given away or taken away, in what way can it be contingent on the actions of a person?

Could this be used as justification of Moral Superiority found in Humans?

Conceivably yes, although you’d hit a problem of humans being superior by human standards but quite possibly not superior by ape standards (for example).

*How do you define wrong?

That’s not really relevant here, my question was whether YOU consider it to be “always wrong but forgivable”. So use whatever definition of wrong YOU use.*

*Simply stated, a solution lies in perspective. We as ignorant people, incapable of issuing perfectly just punishments, are to be fully forgiving. God is to handle Judgment because He is All knowing and capable of issuing Perfectly Just Punishments.

Ok, so you are saying that an eye for an eye is not a permissible policy for humans? This seems to conflict with your original statement that “Within the Laws, capital punishment is necessary (“Eye” for an “Eye”)”.

*I hope my adjusted response was clearer.

Um, not really. Perhaps we can just make this straightforwards. Do you believe capital punishment to be necessary or unnecessary?

*Please consider this explanation: Just as a ball falls to/‘seeks’ the ground when let go in mid-air according to the Laws of Gravity, a human ‘seeks’ peace when placed in a state of being out-of-peace according to the Laws of Love.

So you believe that peace is a sort of ground state that humans revert to naturally? Interesting. Not something I’d tend to agree with, from personal observation humans ground state appears to be to strive to improve. But ignoring that and accepting your position for the moment, how does this relate to an inalienable right to life?*

*To place this in a more optimistic perspective: Abortion of a Human is never the Best Option, therefore, the question becomes why/how are we not doing what is Best?

This seems to be based on the assumption that abortion is never the best option. How do you support this?*

Also remember that the “best option” may not be available.*I suspect girls who have become pregnant from rape would argue that the best way would to have not been raped.

*When are you assuming the baby will die? Miscarriage is separate from abortion. If you are saying the baby will die some time after birth, then I think let life strive to survive naturally.

No, I forget the medical condition now, but there is one where the pregnant woman is highly unlikely to survive to term, the result is that woman dies and the foetus dies with her.*

Would you say that the woman should *allow herself to die along with the foetus rather than have an abortion?

 

[jochoa]

Much of our confusion comes from the difference between something which is Inalienable and an Inalienable Right. Something which is Absolutely Inalienable is seemingly not a right. AND a right set by an earthly authority assumes Inalienability because the authority claims ownership of the possessor of the right.

No, you said that there is either an absolute inalienable RIGHT to free will or the person is not alive…

You are correct. The grammar of my earlier statement, lent itself to this perception. I am now saying, “Free will is Fact. It is unable to be taken away by its possessor. Therefore, it is Absolutely Inalienable.” Earthly authorities can attempt to set limits on the free will, but in doing so, they must claim ownership of the free willed being as to lift the Inalienability of a Life which strives to survive.

Right, so you appear to agree with me that an inalienable right to free will would conflict with an inalienable right to life. The biblical example you cited demonstrates this quite clearly - people exercised their free will and executed someone.

Yes. Which is why the “Word made Flesh”/Nature has established Humans as rulers of all earthly beings.

Sorry but that is not an explanation, it’s an assertion. As I said you might as well say “having opposable thumbs and four fingers grants an inalienable right to life”. If you wish to make it an explanation then you’ll need to show how and why “Having free will and willing patience and kindness to others grants an inalienable right to life”.

Fair enough, perhaps this will clarify the point → If a free willed being will never kill a particular life, it has either granted, established, or respected an Inalienable Right to Life for that particular life.

That’s what I’ve been asking - How an inalienable right to life is justified.

Two Ways:1. God created the After Life to allow for proper and Just Judgment. 2. A life which strives to survive establishes its life Inalienable.

Ok, what about possessors who don’t will it?

If a life does not strive to survive, then it is not living, it is dying, which either does not grant an Inalienable Right, or does not respect the Inalienability of Life.

I wouldn’t say that a murderer claims ownership of a victim. He just kills them. Again this doesn’t help, how could someone “claim possession” of all foestus’?

How do authorities claim possession of people? Through the power of Free Will.

? Afraid you’ve lost me altogether here. Let’s try again. If a right is unable to be given away or taken away, in what way can it be contingent on the actions of a person?

Through confusion of that which is Absolutely Inalienable, and that which is regarded as a Right.

Conceivably yes, although you’d hit a problem of humans being superior by human standards but quite possibly not superior by ape standards (for example).

How do you justify human equality with apes, without being limited in perspective?

That’s not really relevant here, my question was whether YOU consider it to be “always wrong but forgivable”. So use whatever definition of wrong YOU use.

I consider abortion to be → Always not the Best Option, but since the Best Option is not yet fully apparent to all beings, it is forgivable.

…This seems to conflict with your original statement that “Within the Laws, capital punishment is necessary (“Eye” for an “Eye”)”.

The solution to this paradox can only be found with a working understanding of the Holy Trinity and God’s Being (Another discussion for another day!)

Um, not really. Perhaps we can just make this straightforwards. Do you believe capital punishment to be necessary or unnecessary?

Both. Who will be Justifying and Inflicting the Punishment, God or Man?

So you believe that peace is a sort of ground state that humans revert to naturally?..But ignoring that and accepting your position for the moment, how does this relate to an inalienable right to life?*

Peace is only one ground state of the Perfection of Law. Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom are also others. If one is always patient towards a life, it will never kill the life. Also, the ground state of you and me debating this subject so deeply is to find peace with each others’ responses. I hope you know I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion! You are helping me find far greater perspective and understanding, than I could alone. Thank you.

This seems to be based on the assumption that abortion is never the best option. How do you support this?

Abortion is not fully considerate of each life affected by the act.

…I suspect girls who have become pregnant from rape would argue that the best way would to have not been raped.

Which is why Forgiveness and Mercy are a Tremendous part of Patience and Kindness. Forgive them for they do not understand fully what they do, especially because we do not fully understand what they have been through.

No, I forget the medical condition now, but there is one where the pregnant woman is highly unlikely to survive to term, the result is that woman dies and the foetus dies with her.

Would you say that the woman should allow herself to die along with the foetus rather than have an abortion?

I would say the woman should consider how well she knows Jesus. I have no say so on the decision for I do not fully understand the woman’s life.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

 

[Candide_West]

*You are correct. I am now saying, “Free will is Fact. It is unable to be taken away by its possessor. Therefore, it is Absolutely Inalienable.” Earthly authorities can attempt to set limits on the free will, but in doing so, they must claim ownership of the free willed being as to lift the Inalienability of a Life which strives to survive.

What is all this about claiming ownership? The prison service doesn’t claim “ownership” of convicts. It restricts their freedom on the basis that they lost the right through their actions. So in practice free will is not an inalienable right. It can be and is taken away or restricted by others without killing.

*Yes. Which is why the “Word made Flesh”/Nature has established Humans as rulers of all earthly beings.

Great, so to be clear do you agree that free will is not an inalienable right? And if it were then it would conflict against the right to life being inalienable? So you couldn’t have inalienable rights to both?*

*Fair enough, perhaps this will clarify the point → If a free willed being will never kill a particular life, it has either granted, established, or respected an Inalienable Right to Life for that particular life.

Afraid this doesn’t make much sense. Essentially you have said that anyone you don’t kill you’ve given an inalienable right to life. So by this logic even if person X goes insane and kills every single person they see, then he is still considered to be respecting an inalienable right to life to everyone else, because he just can’t get to everyone.*

However, even if I were to agree with the above then it still isn’t a justification. It’s just a conditional statement and thus inherently unable to justify something as being inalienable.*

Two Ways:1. God created the After Life to allow for proper and Just Judgment.

This has got nothing to do with an inalienable right to life as far as I can see.

*2. A life which strives to survive establishes its life Inalienable.

Again, this is an assertion, not a justification. Also it would appear to apply equally well to humans, rabbits, trees, bacteria, or any other life form for that matter.

*If a life does not strive to survive, then it is not living, it is dying, which either does not grant an Inalienable Right, or does not respect the Inalienability of Life.

Ok, but if all a creature needs to do is lose the will to live in order to cease to have a right to life then the right is NOT inalienable.*

*How do authorities claim possession of people? Through the power of Free Will.

As far as I know nobody claims possession of anyone. We made that illegal back when we abolished slavery.*

*Through confusion of that which is Absolutely Inalienable, and that which is regarded as a Right.

? So you are saying that inalienable rights cannot be given away and are thus NOT contingent upon a persons actions?

*How do you justify human equality with apes, without being limited in perspective?

I don’t, humans and apes are obviously different. Humans generally prefer humans, I strongly suspect that apes prefer apes. I see no need or indeed method by which I can calculate some kind of “objective” value to our respective lives (in truth I don’t think the term “objective value” is even meaningful).

*The solution to this paradox can only be found with a working understanding of the Holy Trinity and God’s Being (Another discussion for another day!)

? Your original statement said that retribution is required in law (eye for an eye) you second statement said that humans are required to be fully forgiving (turn the other cheek). Obviously delivering retribution and offering forgiveness are contradictory. So we can’t do both. So which do you think is correct?

*Both. Who will be Justifying and Inflicting the Punishment, God or Man?

People, to the best of my knowledge the courts have never called in God to carry out an execution for a capital punishment crime. So again is capital punishment necessary or unnecessary? We know it cannot be both.

*Abortion is not fully considerate of each life affected by the act.

But humans are not omniscient so nothing we ever do is fully considerate of each life affected by any act. We cannot consider the “perspective” of a foetus when considering whether or not abortion is the right thing to do. Equally we cannot consider the “perspective” of a bacteria when we are considering taking antibiotics. If we waited until we had full knowledge before taking any action we’d all sit still until we died of dehydration.*

Forgive them for they do not understand fully what they do, especially because we do not fully understand what they have been through.*

Afraid i disagree here too. I think I would say “do not judge them if you do not understand what they have been through”.

*I would say the woman should consider how well she knows Jesus. I have no say so on the decision for I do not fully understand the woman’s life.

This is just a hypothetical situation, I’m just trying to discern your view on the moral questions. Do you think a woman whose pregnancy will kill her (and the foetus) should have an abortion and live, or just allow herself to die?

 

[jochoa]

…So in practice free will is not an inalienable right.

I appreciate your use of the concept of “practice.” I like to think, We are practicing for the Final Assessment and Judgment. Hopefully, we can Master the Practice of Love(The Balance of Patience, Kindness, Motivation, and Wisdom in the Heart, Mind, Strength, and Soul towards God, others, and the self), sooner than Judgment Day.

Great, so to be clear do you agree that free will is not an inalienable right? And if it were then it would conflict against the right to life being inalienable? So you couldn’t have inalienable rights to both?

My updated position: Free Will and Life of Humans are Inalienable Rights guaranteed by The Creator of All Things Seen and Unseen. They are not in conflict because no one can take away those Rights, not even the self.

Afraid this doesn’t make much sense. Essentially you have said that anyone you don’t kill you’ve given an inalienable right to life. So by this logic even if person X goes insane and kills every single person they see, then he is still considered to be respecting an inalienable right to life to everyone else, because he just can’t get to everyone.

You stated that X would kill if the opportunity presented itself, therefore he would always kill. In relation to those he does not see, he never considered himself the authority/ruler of those, and therefore was never a granting of right. In the least X has respected/granted an inalienable right to life for his self.

However, even if I were to agree with the above then it still isn’t a justification. It’s just a conditional statement and thus inherently unable to justify something as being inalienable.

Unfortunately, if you do not know the Christian God, you are correct in your limited perspective.

Again, this is an assertion, not a justification. Also it would appear to apply equally well to humans, rabbits, trees, bacteria, or any other life form for that matter.

Which is why there are further considerations in the Law.

Ok, but if all a creature needs to do is lose the will to live in order to cease to have a right to life then the right is NOT inalienable.

I apologize for my misunderstandings: Our Lives are not ours to destroy, therefore one is still subject to Judgment.

As far as I know nobody claims possession of anyone. We made that illegal back when we abolished slavery.

Therefore the government realized what was Inalienable, and then decided to protect it. Hopefully the same will happen regarding the Perfect Balance of the Laws of Love.

? So you are saying that inalienable rights cannot be given away and are thus NOT contingent upon a persons actions?

Yes. The Inalienable Rights are Established by God, the Creator and Possessor of all life.

? Your original statement said that retribution is required in law (eye for an eye) you second statement said that humans are required to be fully forgiving (turn the other cheek). Obviously delivering retribution and offering forgiveness are contradictory. So we can’t do both. So which do you think is correct?

Regarding the Judgment of Life or Death, we are to be forgiving. Within the Laws, there is a method for human authorities to inflict Just Punishment, but my current understanding and practice is not complete, nor perfect, nor graceful, and therefore, this is a topic for another day.

People, to the best of my knowledge the courts have never called in God to carry out an execution for a capital punishment crime. So again is capital punishment necessary or unnecessary? We know it cannot be both.

I encourage you to consider study the Christian God greater, for the answers to your confusion are found through prayer and reflection.

If we waited until we had full knowledge before taking any action we’d all sit still until we died of dehydration.

I find an adaptation of this to be a very interesting concept, but I am far from ready to share.

Afraid i disagree here too. I think I would say “do not judge them if you do not understand what they have been through”.

Therefore, you/we know what Every Single Fetus has been through because you are claiming we have the right to judge the fetus to death.

This is just a hypothetical situation, I’m just trying to discern your view on the moral questions. Do you think a woman whose pregnancy will kill her (and the foetus) should have an abortion and live, or just allow herself to die?

First, how do you know the woman and fetus will die? In the earlier statement, you stated the odds were highly likely, not definite.
Second, my moral stance on this would be the same as earlier: I would say the woman should consider how well she knows Perfect Love/Jesus. I have no say so on the decision for I do not fully understand the woman’s life. I would also express great compassion for I have yet to be placed in similar situations of such grave concern.

 

[Candide_West]

I appreciate your use of the concept of “practice.” I like to think, We are practicing for the Final Assessment …

Ok, I’m afraid you totally misunderstood the term here by “in practice” I meant “in reality”. So to rephrase, for clarity. “in reality, free will is not an inalienable right”. We can see this by looking at the world around us, we DO restrict peoples free will all the time.*

*My updated position: Free Will and Life of Humans are Inalienable Rights guaranteed by The Creator of All Things Seen and Unseen. They are not in conflict because no one can take away those Rights, not even the self.

But as discussed, and as YOUR example showed, the two do conflict. If a person by their own free will kill someone then you either restrict their free will (in which case free will is not an inalienable right) or you permit them to kill (in which case life is not an inalienable right). So as I said you cannot hold that both are inalienable rights.*

*You stated that X would kill if the opportunity presented itself, therefore he would always kill. In relation to those he does not see, he never considered himself the authority/ruler of those, and therefore was never a granting of right. In the least X has respected/granted an inalienable right to life for his self.

So you are saying that Hitler, Polpot, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Jack the Ripper, etc all respected an inalienable right to life?*

*Unfortunately, if you do not know the Christian God, you are correct in your limited perspective.

Ahh but I used to “know” the Christian God so your statement above is misleading.*

Besides, as I said a conditional statement CANNOT be used as a justification for an inalienable right. For example if you said “if a free willed being does X then it has an inalienable right to life” so all a free willed has to do to NOT have an inalienable right is to NOT do X. Thus the right is NOT inalienable.

*Which is why there are further considerations in the Law.

Ok, so you agree that wasn’t a justification? So, my question again, is an inalienable right to life for humans justified, and if so how?*

*I apologize for my misunderstandings: Our Lives are not ours to destroy, therefore one is still subject to Judgment.

That’s quite alright. However, my original statement still stands. As above.*

*Therefore the government realized what was Inalienable, and then decided to protect it. Hopefully the same will happen regarding the Perfect Balance of the Laws of Love.

Right, so no more talking about people claiming ownership of people then yes?*

*Yes. The Inalienable Rights are Established by God, the Creator and Possessor of all life.

Ok, so no more about it being contingent on a person desiring peace or whatnot then.*

*Regarding the Judgment of Life or Death, we are to be forgiving. Within the Laws, there is a method for human authorities to inflict Just Punishment…

Sorry I’m confused, again are we to use retribution or forgiveness?*

*I encourage you to consider study the Christian God greater, for the answers to your confusion are found through prayer and reflection.

I’m not confused, I’m just asking whether you think capital punishment is necessary or unnecessary. It’s a simple, straight question which can’t be answered by anyone except you. A simple, straight answer would be great.*

*Therefore, you/we know what Every Single Fetus has been through because you are claiming we have the right to judge the fetus to death.

Er, no I’ve claimed no such thing. Where’d you get that from? My (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread has been to ask again and again if / how an inalienable right to life for humans is justified. To date nobody has provided one.*

*First, how do you know the woman and fetus will die? In the earlier statement, you stated the odds were highly likely, not definite.

Well yes, if I find myself on the train tracks in front of a speeding train, I might not die if I just stand there waiting. But realistically I’d have to accept that the odds are against me.*

*Second, my moral stance on this would be the same as earlier…

So you refuse to answer the question again? I’m curious why? As I said it’s just a hypothetical question. If it really helps, imagine that your daughter came to you with this situation asking for advice? What would you tell her?*

 

[tonyrey]

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)?

All life is valuable but not all life is equally valuable. We are justified in choosing the greater good and the lesser evil by giving priority to what we consider to be the most - or more - valuable forms of life. Most people would agree that we are more valuable than apes because at the very least we can - and often do - prevent other forms of life from suffering unnecessarily.

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?

If you value something it is unreasonable to allow it to be destroyed unnecessarily. Your unwillingness to justify killing implies that you agree!

 

[Candide_West]

Hey Tonyrey, good to hear from you again.

All life is valuable but not all life is equally valuable. We are justified in choosing the greater good and the lesser evil by giving priority to what we consider to be the most - or more - valuable forms of life. *Most people would agree that we are more valuable than apes because at the very least we can - and often do - prevent other forms of life from suffering unnecessarily.

Ok, that sounds fair. Basically you are saying that humans prefer humans so we are justified in putting a greater priority on the lives of our own kind. As indeed each species of animals does.*

Preferring our own kind is genetically programmed into us and as such requires no justification per se because its just a change in perspective. However, a categoric difference like an inalienable right to life for one species but not for any others would require justification*(or several species but not others for that matter, you never said how many species you consider to have an inalienable right to life).

So anyway, the question still stands. Is an inalienable right to life for humans justified, and if so, how?*

Incidentally “No, it’s just something I believe in” is a perfectly valid answer.

*If you value something it is unreasonable to allow it to be destroyed unnecessarily. Your unwillingness to justify killing implies that you agree!

Indeed, I do. However, that’s got nothing to do with inalienable rights. I value my car, that doesn’t mean it has an inalienable right to exist.*

 

[sw85]

Please help refute the following legal and philosophical argument for contraception and abortion:

A 7-year-old child does not have ALL the rights of an adult – i.e., those rights that accrue, for instance, by virtue of full and legal integration into the polity, such as the right to vote.

They DO have all the rights that accrue by virtue of their humanity, i.e., the right to live.

 

[Candide_West]

A 7-year-old child does not have ALL the rights of an adult – i.e., those rights that accrue, for instance, by virtue of full and legal integration into the polity, such as the right to vote.

They DO have all the rights that accrue by virtue of their humanity, i.e., the right to live.

Hi SW85, just out of curiosity, do you accord this right to everyone, no matter what (ie serial killers, rapists, paedophiles, mass murderers etc)? After all those people are still human too.

 

[hihiip201]

I’m no longer religious, but I do disagree with abortion. The argument you’ve quoted is flawed because it misunderstands the word “rights”, or more correctly, “human rights”. There is what we call “unalienable human rights”, which the argument overlooks, which refers to rights that are fundamental to human existence. They are not earned because of intelligence, stature or perceived maturity, but by the simple virtue of the fact that the living organism is human. Every human has the right to life.

*Edit: Now pro-choice individuals may respond to this and say “but a fetus isn’t human. It has the potential to be human”. Such argument is spurious as well because it presupposes that scientists are infallible on what is and isn’t life. However, history shows that scientists have changed their opinion on what constitutes life. Even today, different scientists have different opinions on what is and isn’t life. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? At least by the assumption that life begins at conception, we can remedy all of this confusion, and therefore save lives that may have been unnecessarily killed because they weren’t deemed “human” by other “humans”.

may I ask that is masturbation wrong then? since it technically destroy a “potential of life” as well? (I’m not an atheist just asking out of curiosity)

 

[Candide_West]

may I ask that is masturbation wrong then? since it technically destroy a “potential of life” as well? (I’m not an atheist just asking out of curiosity)

If so then surely technically turning down any opportunity for unprotected sex should be considered to destroy a “potential of life” in the same way?

 

[sw85]

Hi SW85, just out of curiosity, do you accord this right to everyone, no matter what (ie serial killers, rapists, paedophiles, mass murderers etc)? After all those people are still human too.

I don’t accord rights to anyone; they arise from human nature. So long as a serial killer or a rapist is a human being they also have the right to live. And this right can be abrogated only to the extent that it is necessary to protect other lives.

 

[jochoa]

Candide West, it was a pleasure discussing with you, and I gained great insight into perspective and understanding. However, I must move on to other discussions because I am ignorant and currently lack the wisdom to help you understand the concepts and perspectives presented.

In conclusion, I would like to hear your response to one question:
Why do you fight so hard for the right to kill?

 

[Candide_West]

Candide West, it was a pleasure discussing with you, and I gained great insight into perspective and understanding. However, I must move on to other discussions because I am ignorant and currently lack the wisdom to help you understand the concepts and perspectives presented.

In conclusion, I would like to hear your response to one question:
Why do you fight so hard for the right to kill?

Ok, that’s got to go on record as being the weirdest question I’ve ever been asked on CAF. To answer for you - I have NEVER fought for a right to kill.*

Ok, now perhaps now that I have answered your question for you, you’d do me the kindness of answering mine?*

Once again, is an inalienable right to life for humans justified, if so, how? (Here are some suggested answers to make this easier for you):

A). I believe it is justified yes, I just don’t know how, or where to find out how.

B). Yes it is, and I know how. But I’m not going to tell you.*

C). No, I don’t believe it is justified.*

D). No, I don’t believe it is justified, nor does it require justification, it’s just a brute fact.

 

[Candide_West]

I don’t accord rights to anyone; they arise from human nature. So long as a serial killer or a rapist is a human being they also have the right to live. And this right can be abrogated only to the extent that it is necessary to protect other lives.

Ok, thanks for answering. So, just to check, in your view capital punishment, wars (except entirely defensive ones) etc are always wrong?

 

[sw85]

Ok, thanks for answering. So, just to check, in your view capital punishment, wars (except entirely defensive ones) etc are always wrong?

My view (and the Church’s view) is that capital punishment and wars are both wrong except where absolutely necessary to save lives – e.g., waging defensive warfare or executing criminals from whom society cannot otherwise be protected.

 

[Candide_West]

My view (and the Church’s view) is that capital punishment and wars are both wrong except where absolutely necessary to save lives – e.g., waging defensive warfare or executing criminals from whom society cannot otherwise be protected.

Ok, great. Thanks for the info.