Where do rights come from?

[lucybeebee]

People use the concept of rights to explain why they should be allowed to do something; some claim that there is a right to an abortion, a right to buy or make porn, a right to same-sex “marriage,” etc. According to the natural law school, rights come from God, but for most people, rights just seem to be something that you can petition the government for and if you make enough noise you’ll get them. Do others think this is a fair assessment? Where do rights come from?

 

[RomanCrusader]

I believe rights come from God alone, not governments or pop culture, etc.

 

[CapIV]

Natural rights come from Natural Law or God. Human rights come from the government and are only valid if rooted in the Natural or Eternal Law.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Governments are to service society in compliance with Natural Law. All Natural Law does not need to be echoed into manmade law. For example abortion is legal in man law but immoral in natural law. So the absence of abortion in man law does not violate natural law it simply leaves the issue to the individual to observe. The primary issue is when a person wants to violate natural law when should society intervene and when should society leave it to be between God and the person? I suggest the answer is when the issue will hurt others. So homosexuality does not hurt others, but same sex marriages hurts widows. Porn which pays people needs recruits so it should be illegal. Porn which does not exchange money and is separated from underage people can be legal. Abortion kills innocent babies so it too should be illegal.

At least that is my 2 cents

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have seen it noted that of old governments focussed on duties, not rights. It would probably be best if they continued to do so. You and I will often have conflicting rights, but seldom conflicting duties. Also, people will not often press to have their duties increased.
A minimal government imposing minimal duties on its people will keep order without becoming oppressive.

 

[catharina]

Governments are to service society in compliance with Natural Law. All Natural Law does not need to be echoed into manmade law. For example abortion is legal in man law but immoral in natural law. So the absence of abortion in man law does not violate natural law it simply leaves the issue to the individual to observe. The primary issue is when a person wants to violate natural law when should society intervene and when should society leave it to be between God and the person? I suggest the answer is when the issue will hurt others. So homosexuality does not hurt others, but same sex marriages hurts widows. Porn which pays people needs recruits so it should be illegal. Porn which does not exchange money and is separated from underage people can be legal. Abortion kills innocent babies so it too should be illegal.

At least that is my 2 cents

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Do you mean this?

“Porn which pays people needs recruits so it should be illegal.
Porn which does not exchange money and is separated from
underage people can be legal.”

Pornography is an insult to human dignity - and so to God.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Do you mean this?

“Porn which pays people needs recruits so it should be illegal.
Porn which does not exchange money and is separated from
underage people can be legal.”

Pornography is an insult to human dignity - and so to God.

Yes, I did mean this. Mind you I am not advocating porn at all. The issue is when should you and I join together to stop the action of a third person. I believe it is when the third person’s action hurt another person, a standard which some porn would not met.

 

[catharina]

Yes, I did mean this. Mind you I am not advocating porn at all. The issue is when should you and I join together to stop the action of a third person. I believe it is when the third person’s action hurt another person, a standard which some porn would not met.

Then, please, allow me to educate you with the truth about this “victimless” crime.

Having worked with abused children for many decades, I’m certain beyond any doubt that the porn industry is fed by the sacrificed lives of women who have been terribly sexually abused as children. Since they haven’t the free maturity to say “no” to such abuse, even as adults (who’ve had no therapeutic treatment), my contention is that the porn industry continues to victimize them. In their name and in the name of boys (who can ALWAYS get their hands on porn), I consider pornography to be a serious crime against the entire community in every instance.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Then, please, allow me to educate you with the truth about this “victimless” crime.

Having worked with abused children for many decades, I’m certain beyond any doubt that the porn industry is fed by the sacrificed lives of women who have been terribly sexually abused as children. Since they haven’t the free maturity to say “no” to such abuse, even as adults (who’ve had no therapeutic treatment), my contention is that the porn industry continues to victimize them. In their name and in the name of boys (who can ALWAYS get their hands on porn), I consider pornography to be a serious crime against the entire community in every instance.

I would ask you to read Freud, he too believed porn and children were inherently linked. This was his demise. This belief ruined his career, and is the base for his fame.

Btw what is the correct definitions for porn?

 

[catharina]

I would ask you to read Freud, he too believed porn and children were inherently linked. This was his demise. This belief ruined his career, and is the base for his fame.

Btw what is the correct definitions for porn?

Can scarcely believe you’re pursuing this but here you go:

pornography – noun: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

Last time I read Freud was more than forty years ago. He holds no interest for me. The needs of children, however, hold great interest for me. Unless and until abused children receive effective treatment, they are prey to additional abuse. This is especially so in the matter of sexual abuse. I leave it to you to educate yourself regarding that fact. (The facts are online.) What you’re saying regarding rights and natural law seems to be: “whatever.” If it ‘feels good’ to somebody, they should be free do it - since “some” porn hurts nobody.

How odd - and contradictory of Christian ethics.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Can scarcely believe you’re pursuing this but here you go:

pornography – noun: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

Last time I read Freud was more than forty years ago. He holds no interest for me. The needs of children, however, hold great interest for me. Unless and until abused children receive effective treatment, they are prey to additional abuse. This is especially so in the matter of sexual abuse. I leave it to you to educate yourself regarding that fact. (The facts are online.) What you’re saying regarding rights and natural law seems to be: “whatever.” If it ‘feels good’ to somebody, they should be free do it - since “some” porn hurts nobody.

How odd - and contradictory of Christian ethics.

   So that would mean pornography is up to me not you!  Many say art museums are porn galleries.  The facts are child abuse generates all forms of abuse.  When Freud believed all crazy behavior came from child abuse he was wrong.  Many tried in vain to explain to Freud they had not abused their children, he refused to take their comments seriously.  Later Freud was completely discredited because the abuse stories became impossible of truth.  So to date this is still occurring, some want to burn the books, close the art museums, and blame parents only, none of which is consistent with Natural Law.  In fact it is the old theory we do not need any law we need to live our life as wards of others who will shoulder our entire responsibility.  That is your people correct? They’re not responsible their parents are, or was that their parents, or their parent…etc…etc….

Here is a hint – It is not what happens to you, but what you do that counts

 

[catharina]

So that would mean pornography is up to me not you! Many say art museums are porn galleries. The facts are child abuse generates all forms of abuse. When Freud believed all crazy behavior came from child abuse he was wrong. Many tried in vain to explain to Freud they had not abused their children, he refused to take their comments seriously. Later Freud was completely discredited because the abuse stories became impossible of truth. So to date this is still occurring, some want to burn the books, close the art museums, and blame parents only, none of which is consistent with Natural Law. In fact it is the old theory we do not need any law we need to live our life as wards of others who will shoulder our entire responsibility. That is your people correct? They’re not responsible their parents are, or was that their parents, or their parent…etc…etc….

Here is a hint – It is not what happens to you, but what you do that counts

I’m sure you won’t mind if I leave you to discuss this with yourself. You’re back to Freud. If you don’t understand that there are plenty of adults in the porn world who were subject to sexual abuse as children (especially among the females), then that’s your own choice. Some people prefer ignorance to actions that provide protection to those in need of proptection.

Here is a hint: talk to God about this if you dare.

(Second hint: forget about Freud.)

 

[Texas_Roofer]

But Ms. McGee, 51, a popular art teacher with 28 years in the classroom, is out of a job after leading her fifth-grade classes last April through the Dallas Museum of Art. One of her students saw nude art in the museum, and after the child’s parent complained, the teacher was suspended.

nytimes.com/2006/09/30/education/30teacher.html?ei=5090&en=72efd1846b3947bd&ex=1317268800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

AUSTIN (AP) ― Until they found the topless photos, Austin High School officials considered Tamara Hoover an excellent art teacher with a knack for helping students find their creativity.

Now, she’s fighting for her job.

The photos, which were posted on Flickr.com by her partner, depict Hoover in the shower, lifting weights, getting dressed, in bed and doing other routine activities.

Hoover said Friday the photos are art and makes no apologies.
cbs13.com/watercooler/nude.teacher.Tamara.2.486033.html

 

[Hastrman]

People use the concept of rights to explain why they should be allowed to do something; some claim that there is a right to an abortion, a right to buy or make porn, a right to same-sex “marriage,” etc. According to the natural law school, rights come from God, but for most people, rights just seem to be something that you can petition the government for and if you make enough noise you’ll get them. Do others think this is a fair assessment? Where do rights come from?

Actually no, according to natural law rights come from the nature of whatever it is has the rights–hence the name.

Civil rights come from the government, which can deny them according to rules it sets down–and only so long as it retains its legitimacy.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Actually no, according to natural law rights come from the nature of whatever it is has the rights–hence the name.

Civil rights come from the government, which can deny them according to rules it sets down–and only so long as it retains its legitimacy.

I think you mean Laws of Nature verses Natural [Moral] Law. The Church interchanges Natural Law and Natural Moral Law other often distinct the two.

 

[Hastrman]

I think you mean Laws of Nature verses Natural [Moral] Law. The Church interchanges Natural Law and Natural Moral Law other often distinct the two.

No, I don’t think I do mean Laws of Nature; the only Laws of Nature with which I am acquainted are the Laws of Physics. Natural Moral Law is called natural because it rests on the natures of whatever is being considered.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, I don’t think I do mean Laws of Nature; the only Laws of Nature with which I am acquainted are the Laws of Physics. Natural Moral Law is called natural because it rests on the natures of whatever is being considered.

Well that would make the initial post incorrect. The Church does teach all proper Laws are based on God’s Natural Moral Law. Which the church says is written in the heart of every man.

Laws of Nature = to include Physics, the strong survive, animal actions, etc, were created by God and are Morally Neutral

Natural Law = in the Church is the Natural Moral Law which the church says is written in the heart of every man. Outside the Church some separate this closer to the Laws of Nature. The issue being what is or is not Morally Neutral

Natural Moral Law = The knowledge of right and wrong (moral and
immoral) encrypted in every man* before his birth

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties: -scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

• with standing some interpretations of the “reprobates”

 

[steveandersen]

People use the concept of rights to explain why they should be allowed to do something; some claim that there is a right to an abortion, a right to buy or make porn, a right to same-sex “marriage,” etc. According to the natural law school, rights come from God, but for most people, rights just seem to be something that you can petition the government for and if you make enough noise you’ll get them. Do others think this is a fair assessment? Where do rights come from?

From a pragmatic point of view a “right” is any claim that you have the ability to enforce by law, custom, or other means.

While I believe that rights come from God it is difficult to codify that in secular law. Some constitutions go into minute detail listing rights. Some claim that a listing of rights is flawed because it might cause some to think that if it isn’t on the list then it isn’t a right. This kind of thinking lead to the 10th amendment of the US constitution that admits that the listed rights are not the only ones we have and hat the peopel are free to enjoy the rights that they have always had… which of course doesn’t answer the question of what those rights are.
So right become enumerated through precedent and case law. Thus, civil rights become the ones that you petition the government to declare or enforce.

The abortion issue was based upon the right to be secure in your person and an implied right of privacy. The Gay marriage issue is often made (erroneously IMHO) on the guaranteed right of equal protection.

 

[Hastrman]

No, I don’t think I do mean Laws of Nature; the only Laws of Nature with which I am acquainted are the Laws of Physics. Natural Moral Law is called natural because it rests on the natures of whatever is being considered.

I said Natural Law in the first post…because the entire field of Natural (Moral) Law theory calls it that. The two terms are interchangable everywhere I’ve ever looked.

Anyway, I would argue that half of what we call rights, including all civil rights, are really privileges.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. .
While I believe that rights come from God it is difficult to codify that in secular law. . . .
The abortion issue was based upon the right to be secure in your person and an implied right of privacy. The Gay marriage issue is often made (erroneously IMHO) on the guaranteed right of equal protection.

Note that the Right to Life was codified in the Declaration of Independence as coming from God. It goes on to state that governments which are destructive of that right [e.g. promote abortion] are illigitimate and must be replaced.