Pro Choice Catholics

[aristotle]

You can prove your point by declaring yourself worthless and serving as a slave to the guy with the great artistic talent and the 140 IQ.

…except that I am the guy with the great talent and 140 IQ.

But again, you commit a logic error.

Just because some people are worth more than others doesn’t mean anyone is worthless.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Define “human rights” and defend your statement.

“Human Rights” – those rights which accrue to all human beings as a condition of their humanity. Here are what greater thinkers than you or I have said about it.

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

From the Constitution of the United States:

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(My emphasis)

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Again my emphasis)

And here is my defense:

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?

The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that “society” or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people – perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics – never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.

 

[aristotle]

Thank you for a very well-thought-out response.

Though I respect the constitution, I consider it a flawed document, in need of serious revision. Nevertheless, while I live here, I will honor its words and intent, and would uphold them if placed in any political office.

Now, as for your defense, sadly, it is entirely irrelevant. It references “right to life”. I never questioned right to life. I am pro-life.

But that’s not the point. I do not think all humans are of equal worth. That doesn’t specifically reference “right”, and certainly not “right to life”. One in fact lives in a nation where not all people who have been born are given the same rights, though they all have a right to life. For example, a child of five does not have the right to marry. But that does not mean he is worth less (though he is), or that it would be acceptable to kill him (and it is not).

 

[Ani_Ibi]

In fact, what is the single most important function of constitutional and human rights law? To limit the power of government and corporations.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

aristotle:

One in fact lives in a nation where not all people who have been born are given the same rights, though they all have a right to life.

Wrong. You live in a nation where not all people who have been born are given the same opportunities. But they all have the same rights, except those who are incarcerated.

Everyone has the right to life. Some lose their lives wrongfully.

 

[aristotle]

…except those who are incarcerated.

Case in point.

 

[Amolibri]

If you’ll stop this attack, we’ll have peace.

Huh?
I choose peace. If you see my responses as attacks…I am sorry for you. I don’t need your approval, and neither do you need mine. Let’s leave it at that. You’ve successfully driven me from this thread. congrats.

 

[vern_humphrey]

…except that I am the guy with the great talent and 140 IQ.

If you say so – but on a witness stand, I’d have to say I’ve yet to see the evidence.

But again, you commit a logic error.

Just because some people are worth more than others doesn’t mean anyone is worthless.

The logical error is yours – you confound monetary worth with intrinsic worth.

And even your own arguments your claims – because you have cited cases where one life would be deliberatelyt sacrificed for another life that was “worth more.” At that point, the life of the person sacrificed is without worth.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Case in point.

What case?

 

[aristotle]

What case?

As you said, not all humans have equal rights.

 

[aristotle]

The logical error is yours – you confound monetary worth with intrinsic worth.

Hardly. Never did I compare, or convolute, intrensic and monetary worth.

And even your own arguments your claims – because you have cited cases where one life would be deliberatelyt sacrificed for another life that was “worth more.”

Yes, and?

At that point, the life of the person sacrificed is without worth.

Ah. Same mistake again. Like a broken record.

Less worth does not equal no worth.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Hardly. Never did I compare, or convolute, intrensic and monetary worth.

Yes, at least twice you compared humans in monetary terms, thus confounding monetary and intrinsic worth:

Let me also clarify the position of inequal worth logically.

Axiom 1: Human adults are worth 10000 credits.
Axiom 2: Human children are worth 1000 credits.
Axiom 3: Animals are worth 500…

.

Beyond that, though in terms of murder, this is the case, if someone with an 80 IQ and no gift in art were to seek a state grant for fine arts, he should be denied, whereas someone with a 140 IQ and great artistic talent, should be given that grant.

And this because these two people are not worth the same.

QED

Yes, and?

Ah. Same mistake again. Like a broken record.

Less worth does not equal no worth.

When it results in the death of the lower-valued person – which you explicitly advanced – it certainly does.

 

[aristotle]

Yes, at least twice you compared humans in monetary terms, thus confounding monetary and intrinsic worth:

I see worth declared numerically, in an argument that I gave as an alternative to your own, but not one I personally accept.

Beyond this, numerical does not equal monetary.

I did use one example of when worth would result in getting more money from the government/from interested patrons.

Right consequence is not the same as equity.

 

[aristotle]

When it results in the death of the lower-valued person – which you explicitly advanced – it certainly does.

How so?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I see worth declared numerically, in an argument that I gave as an alternative to your own, but not one I personally accept.

You don’t accept your own arguments? Glad we got that straight.

Beyond this, numerical does not equal monetary.

“Credits” and “grants” are not monetary?

What are they, fish?

I did use one example of when worth would result in getting more money from the government/from interested patrons.

I’ll take that as an admission.

Right consequence is not the same as equity.

How can you have equity in a human being?

 

[vern_humphrey]

How so?

What is the value of a house that has just been torn down? What is the value of a bubble that has burst? What is the value of a tank of gas that has been burned?

When you take the position that you can sacrifice someone else’s live in the manner you cited, that person’s live is valueless.

 

[johnlal]

I see no declared candidate from either party whom I would choose if I had the power.

OK.
In such a case, do you simply abstain from voting and hope for a better candidate next time around, or do you pick a candidate with a weak record on abortion, but is nonetheless a Republican?

 

[vern_humphrey]

OK.
In such a case, do you simply abstain from voting and hope for a better candidate next time around, or do you pick a candidate with a weak record on abortion, but is nonetheless a Republican?

I would say that’s too hypothetical to aswer at this stage – in the end, of forced to choose among pro-choice candidates, I would select the one who is least pro-choice.

If I couldn’t tell which one that was, or there was no material difference between candidates, I’d have to use other decision criteria – which is basically what Cardinal Ratzinger said.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

As you said, not all humans have equal rights.

So?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

What is the value of a house that has just been torn down? What is the value of a bubble that has burst? What is the value of a tank of gas that has been burned?

When you take the position that you can sacrifice someone else’s live in the manner you cited, that person’s live is valueless.

For the pro-choice crowd they can argue in terms of relative worth , or relative anything for that matter. But for the baby about to be aborted it is not relative. It is absolute. He either has worth enough to live. Or she has not enough worth to live.

So next question, what is the absolute threshold of worth for a human being?