The Right to Life

[Vern Humphrey]

The right to live is the most fundamental of all rights, and forms the basis for all others. If you do not have a right to live, what good are other rights? How can a person who has no right to live benefit from a right to trial by jury, for example? How can a dead person exercise freedom of speech?

The Declaration of Independence refers to “. . . unalienable rights . . . life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The Constitution, in the 5th Amendment, refers to “life, liberty or property.” In each case, the right to life is always listed first, because of its preeminence.

From where do we derive the right to live? The Declaration of Independence says that right is “unalienable,” meaning that it is neither granted, nor can it be taken away – it is a part of us as an element of our human condition. Every living human being has a right to live.

Consider the proposition that the government or society somehow grants us the right to live, or decides when we shall enjoy that right. Could the government or society decide that some people – Blacks, Jews, Catholics – would NEVER get the right to live?

What the government or society grants, the government or society can withhold. If we accept that some human agency “grants” us the right to live, it isn’t a right at all, but a privilege, to be granted or withheld at the whim of the grantor.

If you have a right to live, therefore, it must be an inherent, or unalienable right – as much a part of you as your arms and legs, or your mind or personality.

Is an unborn child a living human being?

Well, if the child is not living, there is no controversy at all, is there?

And the child is human – anyone who doubts that can check the DNA – it is human DNA.

And the child is a being – it has its own DNA.

Anyone who holds that ANY living human being does not have the right to life denies the whole concept of human rights.

[Bill E]

Good post Vern, thanks.

[togor]

Vernon expresses his religious views in cut-and-dried terms. If you try to engage him on the question of whether or not there exists a tension between the rights of the woman and the rights he confers upon the cells in her body, he will resist any and all discussion. Others see the process in more gradual terms. One can read the article at the link below, which surveys a range of beliefs, and decide what perspective fits their private views. In any event the matter for all should not be decided by the tenets of his or any other religion. Churches or temples or mosques cannot decide the law of the land.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/04/when-does-life-begin-outside-the-christian-right-the-answer-is-over-time.html

[Allen]

Good post Vern, thanks.

+1

[lyman]

Vernon expresses his religious views in cut-and-dried terms. If you try to engage him on the question of whether or not there exists a tension between the rights of the woman and the rights he confers upon the cells in her body, he will resist any and all discussion. Others see the process in more gradual terms. One can read the article at the link below, which surveys a range of beliefs, and decide what perspective fits their private views. In any event the matter for all should not be decided by the tenets of his or any other religion. Churches or temples or mosques cannot decide the law of the land.

https://slate.com/human-interest/201...over-time.html

I read his post and did not see any religious discussion,

unless you consider the Constitution and Declaration of Independence a religious document


this is a hot topic for folks on both sides of the argument,
one side thinks the 'right to chose' is seconds, or 1 vote, or 1 election from repeal,
the other thinks in the same time frame it will be expanded to allow wholesale murder of everyone, anytime,

both are exaggerations , and likely never to happen

[S.A. Boggs]

994209_381988285236565_1964186648_n.jpg
German Nazi's didn't care about ANY children save an Aryan, American National Socialists don't either! What is the "difference" from a Nazi gas chamber and a Nazi abortion clinic? Gruesome death is the same, both are "legal" under the "law", both "serve" a segment of the population. Vern is correct in what he has stated, I have no idea of what the socialist has stated, but I could guess. Just because a law is "legal" doesn't mean it is right, death is the final result. There is a day of reckoning, either in this lifetime to in the hereafter. All, believer and non, will be judged by how one lived their life. One can stand on a railroad track and deny that a train is approaching fast, the end result is to get hit by reality which will hurt. America is now afflicted with the form of low life that has the banner of "human rights" caring not nor understanding "unalienable" right of life. I posted a picture of a young child, only a soulless Nazi would O.K. the "abortion" of this baby. Abortion is a nice, clean word to use for murder. Perhaps one of our Nazi's would like to factually describe the "medical" procedure of what the "doctor" does to kill the baby. Without going into detail, think of what happened to the Jew's in the Nazi Death Camp.
Sam

[togor]

I read his post and did not see any religious discussion,

unless you consider the Constitution and Declaration of Independence a religious document


this is a hot topic for folks on both sides of the argument,
one side thinks the 'right to chose' is seconds, or 1 vote, or 1 election from repeal,
the other thinks in the same time frame it will be expanded to allow wholesale murder of everyone, anytime,

both are exaggerations , and likely never to happen

The link is worth a read.

Live human cells are sundered from the body regularly. They are human, and at the moment of separation, alive, and have all of the genetic material needed to make a human being. They satisfy the requirements of Vernon's logic yet we do not call them human beings. Embryos obviously take a different path, but not always, and not right away. The point is that it is not cut-and-dried from the get-go as Vernon asserts.

[RED]

The link is worth a read.

Live human cells are sundered from the body regularly. They are human, and at the moment of separation, alive, and have all of the genetic material needed to make a human being. They satisfy the requirements of Vernon's logic yet we do not call them human beings. Embryos obviously take a different path, but not always, and not right away. The point is that it is not cut-and-dried from the get-go as Vernon asserts.

"The link is worth a read."

No it is not. It is more propaganda and BS It talks about "abortion rights," like there is such a thing. Where exactly are these rights found??? They are not mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, our Declaration of Independence, or our Constitution. The right to murder babies does not exist anywhere, or in any civilized place in the universe.

Lie, lie, lie, twist and turn, hate and burn. togor thinks he is God... God never thinks he is togor.

[lyman]

The link is worth a read.

Live human cells are sundered from the body regularly. They are human, and at the moment of separation, alive, and have all of the genetic material needed to make a human being. They satisfy the requirements of Vernon's logic yet we do not call them human beings. Embryos obviously take a different path, but not always, and not right away. The point is that it is not cut-and-dried from the get-go as Vernon asserts.

taking that to an extreme,

a cell that may be alive (skin cells, etc, how long do to live when removed from the body ) is just a bit different than a fetus,

fetus will grow into an adult, given proper care,
cell will always be a cell, with a short life span, unless manipulated into something else by someone in a lab,
(remember we are composed of cells that replace each other, not sprout out into a clone like some plants)

[Vern Humphrey]

taking that to an extreme,

a cell that may be alive (skin cells, etc, how long do to live when removed from the body ) is just a bit different than a fetus,

fetus will grow into an adult, given proper care,
cell will always be a cell, with a short life span, unless manipulated into something else by someone in a lab,
(remember we are composed of cells that replace each other, not sprout out into a clone like some plants)

I pointed out we are dealing with a LIVING HUMAN BEING.

A sloughed-off cell is neither living nor a being, although it may be human. The unborn child meets all three of those criteria -- it is living, human and a being (because it has its own DNA.)

[togor]

"The link is worth a read."

No it is not. It is more propaganda and BS It talks about "abortion rights," like there is such a thing. Where exactly are these rights found??? They are not mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, our Declaration of Independence, or our Constitution. The right to murder babies does not exist anywhere, or in any civilized place in the universe.

Lie, lie, lie, twist and turn, hate and burn. togor thinks he is God... God never thinks he is togor.

Red where are "fetal rights" listed in any of your above-referenced texts? Typical transparently one-sided Red argument.

My point remains, there is a tension between the rights of the woman and that of the developing embryo, which evolves with time. Meanwhile, the words "A woman has rights" stick like a bone in the throats of so many.

Show me the foundational religious text that places the places the rights of the embryo at the forefront, reducing the woman to status of host body.

[S.A. Boggs]

I believe it was 1936 that Dr. Goebbels used the term sub-human to describe the non-Arian and only fit for exploration-extinction. It appears that the new Nazi party has taken on the same ability of using "words" to hide their true meaning. The Nazi's use "words" to cloud peoples minds much like a magician does with their "magic" tricks. @ the trial of the Nazi's after the war their main defense was they were just following the orders of their superior's. When their is a heartbeat, there is life regardless of what "some" want to state.
Words have power to add or detract rarely neutral. Hitler and Dr. Goebbels were masters of using words to affect human emotions to the destruction of others. American Society at one time made the individual responsibility for self, social workers in the 1880's inner city came up with the ideation that society was responsibility. The truth lies somewhere in the middle of my statement. Early I came to realize that regardless of what was done for a person, they turned out bad. The other rational observed that regardless of what was done to them the person came out fine. The only connection was the individual and what that individual wanted. Our society demands answers as to why an individual committed a heinous crime, looking to blame an inanimate object or societal forces. Often the reason is simply that the individual just wanted to do the act regardless of consequence. Murdering children is still murder and Nazi's accept the destruction of children as just following the ideation of human right to choose. Society has means of a female not getting pregnant and of a male in doing the same.
Sam

[Vern Humphrey]

Murdering children is still murder and Nazi's accept the destruction of children as just following the ideation of human right to choose. Society has means of a female not getting pregnant and of a male in doing the same.
Sam

But they do not explain how others don't have this same "right." Does a father have the "right" to kill his children? Does a child have the "right" to kill his parents?

As I have pointed out, as soon as you take the position that a living human being -- regardless of age, level of development or disability -- can simply be killed for someone else's convenience, you have vitiated the whole concept of rights.

[blackhawknj]

Yes, at the moment of conception race, sex, hair color, skin color, eye color, an awful lot of personality is formed-yet some people say that is not a human being.

[togor]

Yes, at the moment of conception race, sex, hair color, skin color, eye color, an awful lot of personality is formed-yet some people say that is not a human being.

Potential human being. The transition is gradual. One cannot dictate the realities of biology to be less ambiguous. But in trying, you would what? Send in the Womb Police? To determine if that miscarriage was spontaneous or deliberately induced? Incarcerate a mother with 4 kids under the age of 10 on mere suspicion that she threw away God's gift?

The anti-abortion zealots refuse to think anything through. They're transfixed by an image and cannot be moved off of it. They should not be in charge of anything