Abortions and the bible.

#930
#930
Roustabout said:
It does in the sense I’m using the term ‘exist.’
Do ideas exist? Sure, but they aren’t objective or material.

What about in other countries? Do those rights “exist?”
Click to expand...

So the thrust of your objection is that rights aren't objective? The irony in this position is that the importance of them not being objective is your opinion (i.e., also not objective).

Do laws exist? What if everyone in the world adopts the same law? Does it suddenly "exist"?

You seem to believe that all humans possess some objective value and yet scoff at the notion that humans could possess rights in the same way. Why is value objective but rights are not?
 
#931
#931
mrz052819dAPR20190524114627.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: IPleadInsanity, Roustabout and marcusluvsvols
#932
#932
What is Risk acceptance
Risk acceptance or risk retention means the fact of accepting the identified risk and not taking any other action in order to reduce the risk because we can accept its impact, the possible consequences - we simply risk it.

Risk acceptance is the assumption of a risk, typically because its risk-reward profile is attractive and within your risk tolerance.

Risk Acceptance is the explicit or implicit decision not to take an action that would affect all or part of a particular risk.



Risk acceptance is not a mitigation strategy because accepting a risk does not reduce its effect. Accepting a risk is the “do nothing” option. I will state it again, if you willingly have sex, especially without the correct use of readily available contraception, you are accepting ALL risks that go with that act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Roustabout and Orangeslice13
#933
#933
Wafflestomper said:
So the thrust of your objection is that rights aren't objective? The irony in this position is that the importance of them not being objective is your opinion (i.e., also not objective).

Do laws exist? What if everyone in the world adopts the same law? Does it suddenly "exist"?

You seem to believe that all humans possess some objective value and yet scoff at the notion that humans could possess rights in the same way. Why is value objective but rights are not?
Click to expand...
I don’t scoff at it. I challenge it. Prove me wrong:
Not sure why you of all people are interested in arguing this as that is not my point at all.

Rights are derived from value. The catalyst of the pro-life position is that the humans, including the unborn, have value.
Rights can be given or taken away at a whim. That’s a fact. I don’t have to show human value as you already accept it. The only difference is how people attempt to ground it.

Opinions can most certainly align with objective reality. For example, I would say we have an objective responsibility to care for and nurture children. So here is your opportunity to to say my opinion isn’t aligned with objective truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#935
#935
Roustabout said:
I don’t scoff at it. I challenge it. Prove me wrong:
Not sure why you of all people are interested in arguing this as that is not my point at all.

Rights are derived from value. The catalyst of the pro-life position is that the humans, including the unborn, have value.
Rights can be given or taken away at a whim. That’s a fact. I don’t have to show human value as you already accept it. The only difference is how people attempt to ground it.

Opinions can most certainly align with objective reality. For example, I would say we have an objective responsibility to care for and nurture children. So here is your opportunity to to say my opinion isn’t aligned with objective truth.
Click to expand...

I would also accept that people have rights so I dont know what force you think this point has. That certainly dosen't make value objective. I asked you why value is not subjective; your answer is that I should prove why it's not objective? That's a really profound argument...

Why don't you instead demonstrate why value is an objective feature of reality rather than, more intuitively, to what extent sentient beings regard an object's (or concept, person, etc.) importance. Good luck!
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjd970
#936
#936
Wafflestomper said:
I would also accept that people have rights so I dont know what force you think this point has. That certainly dosen't make value objective. I asked you why value is not subjective; your answer is that I should prove why it's not objective? That's a really profound argument...

Why don't you instead demonstrate why value is an objective feature of reality rather than, more intuitively, to what extent sentient beings regard an object's (or concept, person, etc.) importance. Good luck!
Click to expand...
I’m claiming it a priori.
Sure, value can be subjective as well.

People are given rights, they don’t “have” them. Why don’t you demonstrate otherwise. Good luck!

Question for you.
Should humans have rights?
 
Last edited:
#938
#938
Roustabout said:
I’m claiming it a priori.
Click to expand...

Based on what reasoning?

Roustabout said:
People are given rights, they don’t “have” them. Why don’t you demonstrate otherwise. Good luck!
Click to expand...

Did I claim otherwise? They "have" them in the sense that they are recognized/protected by powerful entities (e.g., government).

Roustabout said:
Question for you.
Should humans have rights?
Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on what rights you're speaking of, but generally I think so.
 
#939
#939
Wafflestomper said:
Based on what reasoning?
Click to expand...
See your comment below.


Did I claim otherwise? They "have" them in the sense that they are recognized/protected by powerful entities (e.g., government).
Click to expand...
you are begging the question.


I suppose that depends on what rights you're speaking of, but generally I think so.
Click to expand...
Then you just proved my first point. Thanks.
 
#941
#941
Roustabout said:
you are begging the question.
Click to expand...

Did we not establish already that rights "exist" in the typical sense of the word? Want me to actually show you the bill of rights?

Roustabout said:
Then you just proved my first point. Thanks.
Click to expand...

So value is objective because my opinion is that people ought to generally have rights? Seems like broken logic, but okay! Thanks for the exchange.
 
#942
#942
Wafflestomper said:
Did we not establish already that rights "exist" in the typical sense of the word? Want me to actually show you the bill of rights?
Click to expand...
I’ve got a copy.
Doesn’t change the fact that you are begging the question. And no, I don’t think we’ve established that. That’s why you are begging the question. Were the founders creating these rights, or recognizing that they already existed?
So, you accept immaterial reality?


So value is objective because my opinion is that people ought to generally have rights? Seems like broken logic, but okay! Thanks for the exchange.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. You, and every other rational person, acts as if how humans interact and treat each other, actually matters.
It was your comment not mine. Sorry you pulled your own pants down.
 
#943
#943
Roustabout said:
I’m claiming it a priori.
Sure, value can be subjective as well.

People are given rights, they don’t “have” them. Why don’t you demonstrate otherwise. Good luck!

Question for you.
Should humans have rights?
Click to expand...
Sure they have them. What country do you live in?
 
#944
#944
Roustabout said:
I’ve got a copy.
Doesn’t change the fact that you are begging the question. And no, I don’t think we’ve established that. That’s why you are begging the question. Were the founders creating these rights, or recognizing that they already existed?
So, you accept immaterial reality?



Not exactly. You, and every other rational person, acts as if how humans interact and treat each other, actually matters.
It was your comment not mine. Sorry you pulled your own pants down.
Click to expand...
You have wrapped yourself in a rabbit hole to where I don't think even you know what you are asking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjd970
#945
#945
82_VOL_83 said:
You have wrapped yourself in a rabbit hole to where I don't think even you know what you are asking.
Click to expand...
Not at all. The pro life movement has tied the unborn the arbitrary rights. That means the majority rules and can “legally” kill the unborn. Or, seven male judges can determine the unborn do not deserve protection.

A 15 year old lacks a lot of rights that an adult has. Does that change their humanity or their value? No. It might help if you actually understood before you serve up criticism. Right now in this country children are being “legally” killed and you want to talk to me about rabbit holes??
 
#947
#947
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yeah, that is weak sauce. A better angle would be why do we NOT consider an embryo life, but any single celled object 2 miles below the earth's surface or some abstract cosmic slop on Mars IS considered life?
Click to expand...

You guys keep arguing life. Most people concede that an embryo is life. The rub is when an embryo becomes worthy of rights that impinge upon that of the host.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy, Septic and rjd970
#948
#948
ClearwaterVol said:
You guys keep arguing life. Most people concede that an embryo is life. The rub is when an embryo becomes worthy of rights that impinge upon that of the host.
Click to expand...
No, not just life. Human life.
Rights are irrelevant.
A motherhood begins at implantation. Mothers are obligated to care for their children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MyBloodRunnethOrange, Matt2496, Orangeslice13 and 1 other person
#949
#949
Roustabout said:
I’ve got a copy.
Doesn’t change the fact that you are begging the question. And no, I don’t think we’ve established that. That’s why you are begging the question.
Click to expand...

So then you do accept that rights exist (or you have a completely different idea of what constitutes a right than I do).

Roustabout said:
Were the founders creating these rights, or recognizing that they already existed?
Click to expand...

I see them as a committment to protect the collective values or interests of a group (or something like this).

Roustabout said:
So, you accept immaterial reality?
Click to expand...

Is your copy immaterial?

Roustabout said:
Not exactly. You, and every other rational person, acts as if how humans interact and treat each other, actually matters.
It was your comment not mine. Sorry you pulled your own pants down.
Click to expand...

Oh, since everyone is (apparently) of the same opinion that makes it objective? May want to rethink that. What do you think "subjective" means?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top