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

[jochoa]

Hello, once again, Candide West!

Please share your thoughts on the following simplified proof of God’s Existence.

Reflection on the unchanging forces of the world*
There are seemingly various gravitational forces in the world as we know it. There is, among many, Gravity - Why a person forcefully seeks the ground if placed in mid-air. Then there are: Peace, Happiness, Energy, Wisdom, and Love - Why a person forcefully desires peace, happiness, energy/power, wisdom, and/or companionship, when a person is distressed or sick, sad or violent, unmotivated or weak, ignorant, or alone.
These are the Unchanging Laws of Physics and Metaphysics.
*The use is not bound to any limit of worldliness. It could refer to mind, planet, solar system, galaxy, universe, multi-universes, parallel universes, etc.

Reflection on a few Necessary Components guaranteed at the start of the world:
Necessary Component - Since the Laws of Physics and Metaphysics do not change, these Laws must have been fully in place prior to the beginning. (focally The Word)
Necessary Component - All the matter and energy of the world must have been gathered together in Unity (focally The Creator)
Necessary Component - One or both must be True: A Perfectly Loving* Creator set the Word, and/or these Laws must be fully supportive of a State of Perfect Love*(focally communion of the two by the Will of the Creator)
Necessary Component - All of these Components must work together in Unity, to cause the universe to begin, to start the motion of expansion, and to possess all of the resources that can be found in the Universe. (Triune God)
It is these Absolutes that can be called, but are not limited to, The Creator, the Word, the Will, the Triune God(All Components working in Perfect Unity to be Everything)

Reflection on Perfect Love, as personally interpreted according to the Holy Bible, as stated and demonstrated by Jesus Christ in His Greatest Commandments and Crucifixion
Always be Patient and Kind and Motivated for God* with All Your Body and with All Your Spirit and with All Your Mind and with All Your Will towards Others and Yourself.
**God can be defined, but not limited to, as One or All of the following: The Perfectly Loving Creator, Jesus Christ, The Holy Spirit, The Essence of Unbreakable Peace, Undefinable Happiness, and Unstoppable Joy, The Unity of All Energy and Matter, A Thing of All-Power, All-Energy, Inexhaustible, Eternal, Immaterial, Omnipresent, and Personal…

In Conclusion,
Since…
Absolute Patience grants Unbreakable Peace,
Absolute Kindness grants Undefinable Happiness,
Absolute Motivation grants Unstoppable Energy,
and…
The Only Way to Know The Father, The Essence of God, one must Know the Son,
then…
The “authors” of the Holy Bible are Infallible in “their” words regarding How to Achieve and “Spread the Means to” the Greatest Peace, Happiness, and Energy.
Therefore, one must ask the “authors” as to who “owns” the stories they present, and they All, including Jesus Christ, credit God!

Thoughts?

 

[Candide_West]

Thanks for the welcome! I’ve found the discussions here to be fantastic so I had to make it official with an account

My pleasure. I’m pleased to say that the welcome on CAF was very warm for me and that even when debates get a little overheated I’ve still mostly felt very welcome.

*It’s not something I’ve put a lot of thought into outside the context of the U.S. Constitution. But we normally talk about “fundamental” rights. But anyway, in that context it makes sense to me that all citizens have an inalienable right to life and liberty (which may just be a redundant, logical extension of the right to “life” as I don’t understand the inalienable right to life without the inalienable right to do with it what you want). By inalienable, I mean a right that you are born with as a human being that cannot be taken from you without your consent. I know it can’t be taken from you because the only way to prevent you from exercising this right is to make it such that you do not exist anymore. * By right I mean something along the lines of “you are justified in pursuing and should not be prevented from doing.” By life, I simply mean living (existing).

Interestingly though the US constitution does not grant an inalienable right to life. If it did then it would not be able to permit capital punishment for a starter. It would also be unable to morally accept any aggressive military operations. Or, as far as I can see at least, permit police officers to carry lethal weapons.*

Incidentally if a right is inalienable then consent is irrelevant. An inalienable right is one which can neither be taken away or given away. So in other words, you cannot consent to giving away an inalienable right, nor can you lose it by your actions.

*So as a living being you should be filled with the sense that you have a drive inside you to obtain food, breathe air, visit pretty things, avoid death by defending yourself against injury, etc. It should be self-evident to you that you exist and that you are justified in pursuing and should not be prevented from existing. You are probably programmed physically and mentally to do so. And your right to pursue those things should be self-evident to you. It is to me. And we know we have other rights. Some are given to us through the government. None of these other rights are worth anything if I have no right to my existence.

True enough, but a right to life being a prerequisite for any other right does not in itself make that right inalienable.

*I recognize that I am no different from other humans and that you are all also born with the same drive to exist that I have. It’s only fair that I should respect your drive to exist, because I know how strong and real that drive is.

Yep, agreed.

I guess I’m saying it’s self-evident that if anyone has a right to my life, it’s me. And it’s obviously inalienable because nobody could possibly take this right from me without my consent. Even the moment when someone pulls the trigger, he can’t take the right to my life from me. He can only destroy my physical existence such that I could no longer exercise that right. Throughout my entire existence, I alone held the right to my life.

But do you view your right to life as contingent upon your actions? For example if you went crazy tomorrow and started shooting everyone you saw, would you consider it to be a wrong for the police to kill you in order to stop you?*

Incidentally I’m a bit confused about the idea of killing someone or something not removes their right to life. Could you explain how a dead person / animal could have a right to life? *

 

[GEddie]

The fact that a civil society, in this case, the USA, does not recognize a right to life does not in itself disprove such a right. Basic human rights do not derive from societies; they pertain as a result of being human. Christians would say they are assigned by God.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Candide_West]

The fact that a civil society, in this case, the USA, does not recognize a right to life does not in itself disprove such a right. Basic human rights do not derive from societies; they pertain as a result of being human. Christians would say they are assigned by God.

ICXC NIKA

Entirely true. I mentioned the US Constitution only in response to Jeremiah’s point about certain rights being held inalienable therein.

 

[GEddie]

The US Constitution makes no such claim; the American Declaration of Independence (1776) does.

It is an interesting situation that the colonials declared independence claiming to be protecting among other values, a “right to life,” yet eleven generations later, the national state that was formed no more recognizes that right than did the Colonial administration that was chased out in 1781.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Jeremiah1278]

Imprecision: I should have said that I think of inalienability in the context of American Political Theory. I mentioned that we usually talk about fundamental rights instead. By that, I mean the Supreme Court doesn’t really deal in inalienable rights as much as fundamental rights. I think fundamental is a more useful modifier to the term rights because inalienability doesn’t necessarily tell you how important it is. Fundamental connotates that you can’t have any of these other normal rights if you don’t have this Fundamental Right. So I agree with you when you say that prerequisite rights do not mean inalienability.

Inalienability: I think I would concede, that under your definition of inalienability, that there is no such thing as an inalienable right to life. That would be because I think there would be no such thing as an inalienable right in the secular world. A right is inalienable when you can’t transfer it to someone else and nobody can take it from you. But you could always waive it. Rights have little meaning if you can’t waive them. I can waive my Right To Life when I decide to sacrifice my life to save someone else. It’s a conscious waiver while existing. Therefore, I don’t understand the concept of an inalienable right that cannot be waived. Also, like I said, inalienability is less interesting to me than the right to life being thought of as fundamental. As a right-bearing individual, it’s more important to me that you recognize that my right to life is fundamental to my ability to bear any of my other rights. Inalienability is interesting to me in a discussion of a creator, however. Then I could tell you that inalienability is important because God has created me in such a way that values Life and Liberty (free will) such that I can’t hand those things off to someone else. It also implies that He has interest in me individually in that He will not allow me to ever transfer those things and that until the day I die, I will always be able to serve Him (or choose not to), because those are the only two things I need to serve him. I guess that’s a Theological justification for an inalienable right to life. If you don’t can’t transfer your right to life, it’s always your responsibility, and thus God will be able to judge your performance on Earth much better than if you were able to just hand it over to someone else and you had no responsibility for it.

Can you think of any rights that cannot be waived? I can’t. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise that non-waiveable fundamental rights exist outside the concept of a God endowing me with a right He forces upon me at all times.

My Own Actions and Death: If I’m shooting up a mall full of people, I still have my inalienable right to my life. At that point, I’m commiting terrible acts and the community has no duty to respect my inalienable right to life. So the community shoots me to protect itself. When I’m dead, I’m not a right-to-life bearing being anymore. I’m not a being at all. At no time in my life did I transfer my right-to-life (impossible). At no time in my life did another individual take my right-to-life from me and possess it for his own (impossible). The instant before I died I had my unrespected right-to-life fully in tact. At the moment of death I ceased to exist (let me remain secular for this point!). But the causing of my death never removed from me (a living being) my right to life because I had it my entire life. To say that the community removed my right to life from me by killing me is non-sensical because “me” refers to that rights-bearing being who always possessed his right to life. I almost wrote “while alive” at the end of the previous sentence, but doing so is redundant—I will always possess my right to life. When dead, there is no “I” to speak of, so “while alive” is a silly thing to add at the end of that sentence. In short, you can kill me, but you can’t take my right to life becase *me *and *my *refer to a living being… me.

I hope that clears up what I’m talking about. I’m saying it’s axiomatic that living persons exist with a fundamental right to life that cannot be transferred to another person and cannot be taken from someone for use by another person. If you add onto that the concept that I cannot waive my right to my life, then I do not understand what happens when I give you the only parachute left on the plane plummeting to the ground. I’m conciously waiving my right to my life, I think. I could be thinking about that wrongly, and invite others to challenge me on this whole thought process.

 

[Candide_West]

Hello, once again, Candide West!

Please share your thoughts on the following simplified proof of God’s Existence.

Ok, not sure quite where you’re going with this Jochoa, but I’ll follow along anyway.

First comment is that what you’ve presented here obviously isn’t a proof of the existence of God. If you could come up with one of those that actually works you’d be famous indeed.

Anyway, to comment.

Reflection on the unchanging forces of the world
There are seemingly various gravitational forces in the world as we know it. There is, among many, Gravity - Why a person forcefully seeks the ground if placed in mid-air. Then there are: Peace, Happiness, Energy, Wisdom, and Love - Why a person forcefully desires peace, happiness, energy/power, wisdom, and/or companionship, when a person is distressed or sick, sad or violent, unmotivated or weak, ignorant, or alone.*
These are the Unchanging Laws of Physics and Metaphysics.

Ok, you seem to be trying to draw a correlation between what are as best we can establish them the laws of physics, and the natural preferences of the human species. The correlation is not really valid as someone can choose to seek companionship etc or not, they cannot choose to ignore gravity.*

Of course different people have different preferences with respect to behaviour and personal relationships they all have the same relationship with gravity. Some people do not seek love for example. So all the metaphysical “laws” you have proposed here do not hold.

*Reflection on a few Necessary Components guaranteed at the start of the world:
Necessary Component - Since the Laws of Physics and Metaphysics do not change, these Laws must have been fully in place prior to the beginning. (focally The Word)

This is an assumption and unsupported, seemingly unsupportable in fact.

*Necessary Component - All the matter and energy of the world must have been gathered together in Unity (focally The Creator)

This is an assumption, we do not know if big bang theory is correct, or if it is correct if there was some deliberate entity behind it. You believe there was and hence the above is your assumption.*

Necessary Component - One or both must be True: A Perfectly Loving Creator set the Word, and/or these Laws must be fully supportive of a State of Perfect Love*(focally communion of the two by the Will of the Creator)

This is an assumption, there is nothing in the laws of physics, which imply the human emotion of love.

*Necessary Component - All of these Components must work together in Unity, to cause the universe to begin, to start the motion of expansion, and to possess all of the resources that can be found in the Universe. (Triune God)

Assumption, we do not know the starting conditions which are required for the universe to exist.*

*It is these Absolutes that can be called, but are not limited to, The Creator, the Word, the Will, the Triune God(All Components working in Perfect Unity to be Everything)

A list of names attributed to various Gods.*

*In Conclusion,
Since…
Absolute Patience grants Unbreakable Peace,
Absolute Kindness grants Undefinable Happiness,
Absolute Motivation grants Unstoppable Energy,
and…
The Only Way to Know The Father, The Essence of God, one must Know the Son,
then…
The “authors” of the Holy Bible are Infallible in “their” words regarding How to Achieve and “Spread the Means to” the Greatest Peace, Happiness, and Energy.
Therefore, one must ask the “authors” as to who “owns” the stories they present, and they All, including Jesus Christ, credit God!

Thoughts?

Not sure what this is intended to show. The first three are nice phrases, but of course irrelevant since humans are by definition incapable of “absolute” anything.*

The second point is a religious belief which is fine in itself.*

Next which appears to be written as some kind of conclusion is the assumption that the authors of the bible are infallible in their words. And that they credit God…*

Well there doesn’t appear to be any connecting logic here, and your conclusion is an assumption. Sorry Jochoa, but I don’t get your point.

Incidentally if your reason for believing in an inalienable right to life is based on the assumption “the Christian God exists” then that’s fine. Just start from there in your justification. Obviously I don’t agree with that assumption, but I’m happy to start from there to understand your position.

 

[jochoa]

Incidentally if your reason for believing in an inalienable right to life is based on the assumption “the Christian God exists” then that’s fine. Just start from there in your justification. Obviously I don’t agree with that assumption, but I’m happy to start from there to understand your position.

As long as you believe “the Christian God does not exist,” everything else Anyone could state could never justify the Inalienable Right to Life, therefore, I will try harder to demonstrate the “Laws”/God’s Nature to You.

First, you are correct, I am currently presenting these understandings as “Proof, beyond a reasonable doubt,” therefore they will always be founded on some amount of faith.

First, I will begin with the first statement which you claim lacks validity:

Ok, you seem to be trying to draw a correlation between what are as best we can establish them the laws of physics, and the natural preferences of the human species. The correlation is not really valid as someone can choose to seek companionship etc or not, they cannot choose to ignore gravity.

Please consider the following:

Recognizing the Natural Preferences of the Human Species as Laws
Every Single Action a Person Wills is the Culmination of:
-the qualities of Patience, Kindness, Motivation, and Knowledge towards others and the self
-the desiring of Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom for others and the self
-and the achievement of Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom for others and the self

An example demonstrating that Every Single Action a Person Wills is the Culmination:
Let’s consider your response to my “proof” as the example. Please note that the following analysis is Incomplete and can only be Completed by You.
Regarding Qualities
You were Patient in that I keep offering various understandings, and you have yet to either retire in discussion, and you have waited patiently for responses.
You were Kind in that you took the time to read my response, consider my understandings, respond, and you even responded respectfully and offered guidance.
You were Motivated in that something motivated you to share your thoughts.
You were Knowledgeable in that you have a perspective and were capable of sharing your perspective/knowledge.
You did all of these things toward, some combination, of me and you (Companionship).
Regarding Desires - Only you can fully define your level of desires, however, I can offer some possibilities.
You are desiring a level of Peace/Contentment in multiple ways: In reference to Agreeing on a Solution to the Proposed Question. Perhaps You are desiring Peace and Happiness for the person who is considering that abortion is the only way to achieve Peace and Happiness. Perhaps, in some way, you are desiring Peace and Happiness for the person who is being considered to be aborted.
You are desiring a level of Happiness. Perhaps you are somewhat like me, in that you enjoy considering others’ perspectives, therefore discussion and thought brings you some joy.
You are desiring Wisdom in that you are either trying to become wiser by considering others perspectives, or you are trying to share your wisdom.
The composition of your message required energy, therefore, in the least, you had to desire to use energy.
You are desiring Companionship in that you are interacting with others.
Regarding Achievement
Only you know the complete level of your Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom when and after composing your message. However, I can share with you how you affected me, personally:
You did not have any affect on my state of peace.
You added somewhat to my level of happiness from your consideration, response, and companionship…
You added somewhat to my level of energy, for I would like to help shed some light on some topics which might draw you closer to God.
You added to my knowledge and wisdom by sharing your perspective.
You added to my companionship by sharing your thoughts with me.

Although a person may prefer to focus on a particular factor and ignore other factors, every action of his/hers will always be the culmination of all the factors. Therefore, it can be said, that these are Laws which existed from the beginning of Time as we know it.

Side Note Regarding the Force of Gravity
Although persons cannot choose to ignore gravity, they can ignore the Force of gravity. For if a person learns from the Force of gravity, they will recognize the “Force” which pulls objects to the center of the earth. Then they will go onto to recognize the “Force” which pulls objects to the center of the sun, and then the center of the galaxy, and then the center of the Universe, and then…the person must have Faith as to what happens next, for the “Force” becomes Immaterial and Intangible.

Thoughts?

 

[Candide_West]

Imprecision: I should have said that I think of inalienability in the context of American Political Theory. *I mentioned that we usually talk about fundamental rights instead. …So I agree with you when you say that prerequisite rights do not mean inalienability.

Righto.

*Inalienability: I think I would concede, that under your definition of inalienability, that there is no such thing as an inalienable right to life. That would be because I think there would be no such thing as an inalienable right in the secular world. A right is inalienable when you can’t transfer it to someone else and nobody can take it from you. But you could always waive it. Rights have little meaning if you can’t waive them. I can waive my Right To Life when I decide to sacrifice my life to save someone else. It’s a conscious waiver while existing. Therefore, I don’t understand the concept of an inalienable right that cannot be waived.

But this is the very reason that inalienable is the term used. It means for example that suicide is wrong because a person is destroying their own right to life, equally euthanasia is wrong for the same reason. It’s key to the whole principle of the right being “inalienable” that it cannot be waived.*

If people simply said that the right to life is “fundamental but can be given away or taken away under certain circumstances” then I wouldn’t ask for a justification.

Inalienability is interesting to me in a discussion of a creator, however. Then I could tell you that inalienability is important because God has created me in such a way that values Life and Liberty (free will) such that I can’t hand those things off to someone else. It also implies that He has interest in me individually in that He will not allow me to ever transfer those things and that until the day I die, I will always be able to serve Him (or choose not to), because those are the only two things I need to serve him. I guess that’s a Theological justification for an inalienable right to life. If you don’t can’t transfer your right to life, it’s always your responsibility, and thus God will be able to judge your performance on Earth much better than if you were able to just hand it over to someone else and you had no responsibility for it.

Hmmm, this sounds more like fundamental duties rather than inalienable rights. I understand that those are your religious beliefs and that’s fair enough. Obviously I don’t share them.

Can you think of any rights that cannot be waived? I can’t. I’m willing to be convinced otherwise that non-waiveable fundamental rights exist outside the concept of a God endowing me with a right He forces upon me at all times.

Well in a practical sense I definitely agree with you. Indeed as far as I can determine “rights” in a practical sense only exist in so far as they are granted and enforced by a human authority. But of course that doesn’t mean there aren’t morally justified “inalienable rights”. That was the thrust of my question on this thread really.

*My Own Actions and Death: … In short, you can kill me, but you can’t take my right to life becase *me *and *my *refer to a living being… me.

Hmmm I fear we may be coming down to a question of semantics. You could equally employ the above argument to say that I will never be dead. Because once I die “I” cease to be thus there is no “me” to be dead. However, that makes the statement effectively meaningless.

Equally saying that you have an inalienable right to life because once you take it away they cease to be a person, make the “inalienable right to life” worthless and irrelevant. I suppose this would tie in well with TonyRey saying that it’s a “lesser evil” to kill millions of creatures which have an “inalienable right to life” than to put up with a bit of a smell.*

But this can’t be what people mean when they bring up an “inalienable right to life” in debates about abortion, euthanasia etc.*

*I hope that clears up what I’m talking about. I’m saying it’s axiomatic that living persons exist with a fundamental right to life that cannot be transferred to another person and cannot be taken from someone for use by another person. If you add onto that the concept that I cannot waive my right to my life, then I do not understand what happens when I give you the only parachute left on the plane plummeting to the ground. I’m conciously waiving my right to my life, I think. *I could be thinking about that wrongly, and invite others to challenge me on this whole thought process.

Yes, I’d agree with your analysis here I think. If I can morally choose to waive my own right to life, then by definition that right is not inalienable, at least if we stand by the term “right to life” as actually meaning anything.

 

[tonyrey]

If you add onto that the concept that I cannot waive my right to my life, then I do not understand what happens when I’m consciously waiving my right to my life, I think.

You would not be waiving your right to life any more than Jesus did when He allowed Himself to be executed. You are simply choosing what you believe to be the lesser of two evils.

 

[tonyrey]

I suppose this would tie in well with TonyRey saying that it’s a “lesser evil” to kill millions of creatures which have an “inalienable right to life” than to put up with a bit of a smell.

The acid test is whether you would kill anything just for the hell of it? Well?

 

[Candide_West]

As long as you believe “the Christian God does not exist,” everything else Anyone could state could never justify the Inalienable Right to Life, therefore, I will try harder to demonstrate the “Laws”/God’s Nature to You.

Ok, so rather than trying to prove that God exists, how about you start from the assumption “the Christian God exists” and give a justification from there. That would be definite progress. If instead you try to prove the existence of God before you give your justification then I fear you’ll never get there.

*First, you are correct, I am currently presenting these understandings as “Proof, beyond a reasonable doubt,” therefore they will always be founded on some amount of faith.

Ok, and that’s the first snag. I do not share your faith.

*First, I will begin with the first statement which you claim lacks validity:
Please consider the following:

Recognizing the Natural Preferences of the Human Species as Laws
Every Single Action a Person Wills is the Culmination of:
-the qualities of Patience, Kindness, Motivation, and Knowledge towards others and the self
-the desiring of Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom for others and the self
-and the achievement of Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom for others and the self

Again these are nice soundbites but bear little resemblance to reality. Of course SOME activities are motivated by the things you mention above. But equally many are not. For example, I just went and got a drink, was I motivated by desiring peace, happiness, energy and wisdom? No, I was thirsty.*

The point is that attempting to reduce the huge array of human experience and motivation down to a few words really doesn’t work.

…Therefore, it can be said, that these are Laws which existed from the beginning of Time as we know it.

Again, this is an assumption, and both unsupported and unsupportable.

Side Note Regarding the Force of Gravity
Although persons cannot choose to ignore gravity, they can ignore the Force of gravity. For if a person learns from the Force of gravity, they will recognize the “Force” which pulls objects to the center of the earth. Then they will go onto to recognize the “Force” which pulls objects to the center of the sun, and then the center of the galaxy, and then the center of the Universe, and then…the person must have Faith as to what happens next, for the “Force” becomes Immaterial and Intangible.

Thoughts?

I’m afraid I disagree, I’m not even sure where you’re going with this, but we cannot choose to ignore gravity in any meaningful sense. It is there whether we like it or not.*

As for pulling towards the centre of the universe… Well we have yet to determine if such a thing even exists. And gravity would in any case not suddenly become immaterial or intangible if we did locate it, and therefore no faith is required.*

As I said, let’s just sidestep the whole deal with attempting to prove God exists and go straight to the justification which comes from that assumption please. It really does make more sense that way.*

 

[Nate13]

The inalienable right to life already exists in practice throughout our society, because no other rights matter if you don’t have a right to life. When two people’s inalienable rights to their lives clash there are consequences. This is played out in practice within our society because the only time a person’s right to life is forfeit is when they endanger someone else’s right to life unjustly. I believe you used the example of capital punishment as why we do not have a right to life. In theory capital punishment does hold up the right to life because it should only be used when it is deemed necessary to kill someone in order to protect the lives of everyone else in society. We can argue about whether we go farther than that with it in America, but this is the principle on which the Catholic Church teaches capital punishment is allowed. Suicide does deny a person’s right to life, because it does so unjustly. There is no reason for that person to take his/her life, unless its to save another person’s life. Assuming everything is neutral my right to life is no greater than your right to life and if one of us sacrifices our life so that the other may live this is in accordance with the right to life that exists.

The right to life does exist and should be protected within the Constitution by default in protection of all the other rights. I would hope if there is any question about this we would just buck up and add a right to life amendment. An inalienable right does not mean that right may never be breached, because it can when it comes into conflict with someone else’s inalienable right of equal or greater value.

 

[Candide_West]

The acid test is whether you would kill anything just for the hell of it? * Well?

By “acid test” am I correct in guessing that you mean “question which is totally unrelated to the subject matter”? If so then yes, that is the “acid test”.

Anyway, to answer you - no, I don’t kill things just for the hell of it. That would be (by definition) pointless. Obviously that bears absolutely no relevance to whether or not creatures have an inalienable right to life.*

Incidentally, have you thought of an answer to my question yet - is an inalienable right to life for humans justified, and if so how? Oh, and I guess you noticed I replied to your previous message?*

 

[StarFireKK]

As one can see in my header, I am in USA.

As to abortion: the governing principle is the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, which invalidated then existing State laws limiting abortion, based on such infringing the woman’s “right to privacy” (which is nowhere in the Constitution, and exists nowhere in human life unrelated to abortion).

ICXC NIKA

I know this is an older post but I thought I would respond in case anyone is still curious.

“Right to privacy” is legal shorthand. It refers to a series of Supreme Court decisions which establish an adult citizen has certain sexual and reproductive rights that the government should not infringe without an excellent reason. The “right” is based on the establish law for the 14th amendment due process clause and it goes far beyond abortion.

It includes the right to have or not have children (adoption, contraception, abortion (and I would argue the right to have as many children as you want- we are probably going to have to defend that someday!)), who you have sex with and how you have sex in the privacy of your own home, and the right to raise and educate your children as you see fit.

Now, there are levels of “rights” when it comes to Constitutional laws. It is a balancing act between the freedom granted by the right and the government’s interest. For example, we all have the right of free speech but it is still illegal to shout “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater. The government’s interest in not having a panic heavily outweighs our right to say “fire.”

I am not defending Roe v. Wade or the right to an abortion. But I feel it is important to point out that the phrase “right to privacy” is often misinterpreted.

 

[jochoa]

Ok, so rather than trying to prove that God exists, how about you start from the assumption “the Christian God exists” and give a justification from there. That would be definite progress. If instead you try to prove the existence of God before you give your justification then I fear you’ll never get there.

Given the Christian God Exists, There is Life After an earthly Death. He will raise the Dead, and Justly Judge, Reward and Punish Each Life Accordingly. And the Punishment will not be Killing the Life, but rather rejecting the Life from the Awesomeness of His Kingdom. Therefore, God has in place an Inalienable Right to Life.

Again these are nice soundbites but bear little resemblance to reality. Of course SOME activities are motivated by the things you mention above. But equally many are not. For example, I just went and got a drink, was I motivated by desiring peace, happiness, energy and wisdom? No, I was thirsty.

I am very glad you offered a second example, and I will gladly explain how the act of simply getting a drink is the Culmination of:
-the qualities of Patience, Kindness, Motivation, and Knowledge towards others and the self
-the desiring of Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom for others and the self
-and the achievement of Peace, Happiness, Energy, and Wisdom for others and the self
Please note, only you can complete the assessment. However, I will offer some guiding questions and limited answers to help demonstrate your wills alignment with the Culmination:.
Regarding the Qualities
Patience - Did you walk calmly to the refrigerator or were you running because you had to have the drink immediately?
Kindness - Were you drinking to fulfill a want? Were you careful enough to not hurt anyone, including yourself on your way to getting a drink? Were you careful enough on the act of opening/drinking the drink to not spill it?
Motivation - You were motivated to satisfy a desire for hydration in your body. Perhaps you were motivated to enjoy the experience of a “tasty” beverage. From the simpleness of your statement, you seem motivated for yourself, however, you could be motivated for others, in that if you feel refreshed, satisfied, you can interact more Patiently and Kindly.
Knowledge - You had to know where to get the drink. You had to know how to hold on to the drink. You had to know where your mouth is in relation to your hand.
Regarding the Desires
Peace - Your Body was Desiring some level of Peace or Happiness in that it was Thirsty. It was yearning for hydration.
Happiness - Perhaps you enjoyed the taste or the feeling as you drank the drink.
Energy - All drinks have a certain energy associated with them. I do not know the science behind it all, but even water helps energize a Thirsty Body.
Wisdom - You have mastered the Wisdom regarding having a drink, therefore there is no further desire for Wisdom.
Regarding Achievement
Peace - From my perspective, you had no affect on my Peace.
Happiness - If you are happier, more capable of being patient and kind towards others, from drinking, then I am and will be happier than what I am/would be if you were saddened or angered. There is a chain of events from all patience/impatience and kindness/meanness, it is not until we choose to be Unconditionally Patient and Kind that we will truely grow as a society and individuals.
Energy - You definitely gained some Energy. Did you use that Energy to spread or “spread the means to” Energy, Peace, Happiness, or Wisdom?
Wisdom - Your ability to have a drink without thinking about all the knowledge required to have the drink, is the evidence of mastery of wisdom regarding having a drink.

Please note: There are some extensions to the proposed factors, however, I am trying to first present a smaller foundation.

The point is that attempting to reduce the huge array of human experience and motivation down to a few words really doesn’t work.

Given that I could demonstrate alignment with a task as simple as having a drink, please share an example which cannot be aligned. And what I find more amazing is that Jesus and the Holy Bible summoned this up and much more, in far more graceful statements: “Love God with All Your Heart and with All Your Soul and with All Your Mind and with All Your Strength, and Love Your Neighbor as Yourself.”

Again, this is an assumption, and both unsupported and unsupportable.

Therefore I will continue to work on demonstrating that Every Single Action is the Culmination of the Factors of Desiring, the Quality, and the Achievement of Patience/Peace, Kindness/Happiness, Motivation/Energy, and Knowledge/Wisdom towards others and the self.

Regarding the Required Faith to Accept What Happened before the Beginning & The Cause of Gravitational Force
Please note that this is not meant to be about Gravitational Force. It is about the Cause of Gravitational Force. I do not Know how the world, planets, stars, and galaxies came to be. I was following the logic of a popular concept. The Fact is that no matter which method any person, other than God, demonstrates the world to have come into existence, there will always be a degree of faith required to accept what happened before the proposed cause/source.

Thoughts?

 

[Candide_West]

Given the Christian God Exists, There is Life After an earthly Death. He will raise the Dead, and Justly Judge, Reward and Punish Each Life Accordingly. And the Punishment will not be Killing the Life, but rather rejecting the Life from the Awesomeness of His Kingdom. Therefore, God has in place an Inalienable Right to Life.

Ok, once again I fear this is an opposable thumbs style justification. What you have said is essentially “everyone lives forever spiritually, although many people won’t want to, therefore there is an inalienable right to life”. If you are correct and we are all doomed to exist for eternity (a horrifying thought in it’s own right) then that just means that it’s impossible to really kill anyone, it doesn’t mean that humans have an inalienable right to not be killed here on earth.*

*I am very glad you offered a second example, and I will gladly explain how the act of simply getting a drink is the Culmination of…

Ok, I think I understand now, you are saying that you can very loosely connect any given activity back to those characteristics. As of course you can with any characteristic. For example - height - I found the drink in the fridge at a certain height above the ground… Yes, I’ll grant you, any activity can be loosely related to those characteristics, or any other set of characteristics you choose to define.

*Given that I could demonstrate alignment with a task as simple as having a drink, please share an example which cannot be aligned…

I can’t think of an example of an activity which cannot in some way be connected to any given set of characteristics.*

*Therefore I will continue to work on demonstrating that Every Single Action is the Culmination of the Factors of Desiring, the Quality, and the Achievement of Patience/Peace, Kindness/Happiness, Motivation/Energy, and Knowledge/Wisdom towards others and the self.

Righto, out of interest, why did you pick those characteristics? You know you could do the same with height, size, evasiveness, colour, explanatory power, intelligence, roughness… Etc etc etc right?*

*Regarding the Required Faith to Accept What Happened before the Beginning & The Cause of Gravitational Force
Please note that this is not meant to be about Gravitational Force. It is about the Cause of Gravitational Force. I do not Know how the world, planets, stars, and galaxies came to be. I was following the logic of a popular concept. The Fact is that no matter which method any person, other than God, demonstrates the world to have come into existence, there will always be a degree of faith required to accept what happened before the proposed cause/source.

Thoughts?

Nope, there’s no faith required to accept my position on the subject, I don’t know how the universe started, there’s no faith required to accept that you don’t know something. If we ever come up with good evidence for how the universe started then I’ll review this position, but until that point I’ll stick with “I don’t know”.

 

[Nate13]

Nope, there’s no faith required to accept my position on the subject, I don’t know how the universe started, there’s no faith required to accept that you don’t know something. If we ever come up with good evidence for how the universe started then I’ll review this position, but until that point I’ll stick with “I don’t know”.

Is your position “I don’t know, but it sure as heck wasn’t a God anything like the Christian God” or is it a true “I don’t know”. If you haven’t ruled God out then your life is an act of faith, because you have to hope that every decision you make doesn’t tick off the all powerful God your not sure exists. You could believe that he created everything and then just stopped caring, but that would also be an act of faith. You also have to have faith to begin with that your ability reason and logically think things through is sound, unbiased, and actually is based in reality.

 

[Candide_West]

Is your position “I don’t know, but it sure as heck wasn’t a God anything like the Christian God” or is it a true “I don’t know”.

It’s a true “I don’t know”. At this point any other position would be one of some kind of faith. It’s possible that it was a God, or quantum fluctuations in an existence outside our universe, or aliens in another universe, or little green pixies, or any other theories your mind could invent, until there exists some level of evidence for a particular theory “I don’t know” is the only response open to me.

*If you haven’t ruled God out then your life is an act of faith, because you have to hope that every decision you make doesn’t tick off the all powerful God your not sure exists. *

Not at all, believing that such an entity exists and I’m doing what he wants would be an act of faith, believing that IF such a being exists and that my afterlife was dependent on compliance with a given set of rules would be an act of faith… Not believing that any gods exist when I have no evidence of any gods existing requires no faith at all.

Equally I don’t need to have faith to not believe in Santa claus, the Easter bunny and unicorns. I acknowledge that it’s theoretically possible that they all exist. But until I have some evidence of their existence they fall foul of Ockhams Razor.*

You could believe that he created everything and then just stopped caring, but that would also be an act of faith.

Yes, that would be an act of faith. I don’t believe that.

*You also have to have faith to begin with that your ability reason and logically think things through is sound, unbiased, and actually is based in reality.

Nope, as a wise man once said, “I think therefore I am”. I have no practical option but to work under the assumption that I exist and my perceptions of reality conform roughly to reality.*

 

[tonyrey]

So love for you is involuntary?
Yep, so is fear, hope, happiness, disgust. if you want to test this then try it for yourself, attempt to “choose” to love your pen, or “choose” to stop loving your children (if you have children, or other family otherwise). Or “choose” to be terrified of the light switch… Let me know how that works out for you.

No idea, are you actually reading the things you are replying to? If so how does this question relate to what you were replying to? If you read back you will note that I did not say “something doesn’t have to be able to make a choice to be rational” but rather “something doesn’t have to be a choice to be rational”. Clear now?Do you ever commit yourself?

By choice?

Nope.Do you ever commit yourself?

1. Most people have been brought up to believe it is wrong to commit crimes - and given reasons why.

Ok, but that is generally not the reason that we don’t commit crimes.I see. We commit crimes for no reason…

1. “Because reasons become habits” doesn’t imply that reasons are the sole reason why people refrain from committing crimes!

Good, so i take it that you are retracting your comment then. I’m relieved.The fact remains that reasons become habits.

The principle of the lesser evil applies but opinions vary as to which is the lesser evil.

No one is morally infallible.
Ok, but given the very low value of an “inalienable right to life” for you, then you personally do not use that as an argument against abortion correct?Low in your opinion…

Does it matter?

It’s interesting to me.Do you ever commit yourself?

Once again the principle of the lesser evil applies.

But as I said an “inalienable right to life” must be more or less worthless to you. As clearly its a “lesser evil” to kill millions of creatures with an inalienable right to life than to endure a little bit of smell.It’s pointless asking you whether you kill creatures unnecessarily, let alone for any reason whatsoever…

It is not lost at all.

So you’re saying that even when you’ve killed a creature it still has an inalienable right to life? If it is not lost in the killing process then could you explain how a dead creature retains its “inalienable” right to life please?Ever hear of a principle?

The preservation of life.

Ok, obviously that’s nothing to do with the question, so could you please present these “objective criteria for determining whether killing is justified”? And if you have one, a source would be great too.Can you explain why killing is always justified? Or why nothing is ever justified

If you rarely use your power of reason obligation is meaningless!

Er, yes I guess that would be true IF I rarely used my reason, but as I have repeatedly and explicitly stated, I do use reason as best I can, so your statement above seems pointlessly irrelevant.But you feel no obligation to use your power of reason…

We are concerned with moral obligation which hardly applies to using a car - unless it affects a living being adversely. The topic is contraception and abortion…

Right, and reason, just like science, a hammer, maths, a car, art, a computer… is an amoral tool.Everything seems to be amoral as far as you are concerned!

So there is no moral obligation to use reason any more than there is a moral obligation to use science, or a car or a hammer, or maths. With any of these things you can use them for things which we consider to be moral, or you can use them for things that we consider to be immoral. In both cases the tool itself is amoral.

Who are “we”?

Precisely! That is the very point I’m making.

That is a very weird point you are making. Both you and I make use of the tool of reason, and are doing so in this very conversation, and you are trying to make a point that people don’t choose to not use reason? Why?Your contortions merely reveal your inability to evade or admit the fact that it is unreasonable not to reason and that anyone who believes he is not obliged to be reasonable needs to see a psychiatrist…

Amoral activities - unless they affect a living being adversely.

Yep, all amoral tools. Just like reason.Just like everything else whatsoever!

By the immense value of life - which is a source of opportunities for development, exploration, adventure, creativity, enjoyment, love and fulfilment.

Ok, that is obviously not a justification. It goes under the class of “humans have opposable thumbs” style statement as per my discussion with Jochoa.Just like everything else - in your nebulous opinion!

So, once again - Is an inalienable right to life justified, if so how?

So, once again - Are there any rights at all, if not what are they?

Incidentally, “I don’t know” is a perfectly valid answer to this question. Or, “I don’t have a justification, I just believe it based on faith” or “I believe God said X and I interpret that to mean that humans have an inalienable right to life”. Obviously I won’t be able to share in that judgement, but it’s fine if that is the justification that lead you to this conclusion. Don’t feel that you are under an obligation to provide a reasoned justification.

That final remark is more applicable to you than to me - given that you consider that you are not obliged to provide a reasoned justification of anything whatsoever! And that is a fitting conclusion to a futile attempt on my part to have a reasoned discussion.

[/QUOTE]