Is the right to self defense an inherent right?

Thank You. We hold these truths to be self evident. Period. That's my whole comment, regarding the subject of this thread.
In all of this discussion about the Zimmerman case, where one claims that "decent" society will banish Zim, he has nothing to fear. Society is by no means "decent". Intelligent, informed, THINKING persons have no choice but to agree with the verdict. Again, due to the evidence, it is SELF EVIDENT. The only reason why any discussion extends from it is precisely because society is by no means "decent".
Lastly, why is God absent from this entire thread, all the way up to post #98?

 

I knew you were asking me that question.
In my opinion, a new life starts when a new and in a certain way independent formation of cells has been build. But in my eyes, the "word" birth describes (and should describe) more a formal process where mammals "step outside" of their mother.

I think I know where you´re going with this. So let´s say you describe a fetus as a living creature. Maybe, a fetus can even experience pain (according to Stuart Derbyshire from University Birmingham even this is not the case and I follow him on that). But a chicken can do as well and is a living creature. And would you say a chicken has a right to life or maybe even an inherent one? See, I don´t want to unconditionally compare a fetus to a chicken. But only because something can be seen as something that is living, it hasn´t automatically a right to life.

I respect your opinion and I definitely wouldn´t say this opinion is absurd in some way. However, it is YOU that is attributing this right on yourself. Imagine a world, where no animals and therefore also no humans but only some trees were living and it used to be always like that. So where should the right of a tree come from when the idea of a right, a morally correct thing, hasn´t even been invented?

 

What's the biological name of that event or occasion?

Are you suggesting we need to delete the other meanings from the dictionaries then?

Okay.... that's (at a minimum) what they are...

I'm not sure why you think it matters if a creature can feel pain or not.

We have 'born' children - which you yourself would accept as children - who are incapable of feeling any pain at all.

[video=youtube;XQUnRBvfvuo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQUnRBvfvuo[/video]

Would you deny to them their basic human rights - just because they can't feel pain?

I would say a chicken of any age has a right to the life it is living.

Yes.

Why wouldn't it?

Why not?

For me, it has nothing to do with morality.

Looking at it objectively - were I to be an intelligent visitor from another planet - I would associate the living tree (creature) with the life it is living.

Likewise, if we were to find a living creature on Mars, I would conclude that that creature - whatever it is - would have ownership as the vessel that carries it's own life. By association alone, that creature would have a 'claim' to the life it is living.

Maybe the point can be better made with a question...

"What right (claim) does a chicken, tree or creature on Mars have to the life it is already living?"

 

Well, there are different criteria of a living thing, for example growth or the ability to reproduce. If those criteria are given, then the formation of cells is sufficient.

No, every author can write what he wants. In my eyes those definitions are simply not correct so I just won´t recognize them.

Not so sure on that one..

No, because those have already more what makes them what they are: a human being. They can socialize, are aware of their surroundings and so on. A fetus on the other hand has nothing of those things. So the (probably non existent) feeling of pain could be the only thing you could argue with in this regard.

I would say so, too. And do you think, a small fly has an (inherent) right to life?

Yeah, you would associate the tree or creature with the life it is living. And you would suppose that it has a right to life. Many intelligent spectators would do that, I don´t doubt that. But like you said you are an intelligent visitor. And as someone like that you put your subjective thougts on the tree. If no humans and other intelligent species were on earth or in the universe, no one could associate "the tree (creature) with the life it is living".

 

Yes, everyone has a right to defend themselves.

 

Absolutely.

 

Isn't that's what the police are for?

 

It's a lot more inherent than "healthcare".

 

So if a policeman stops someone who appears suspicious and questions them is that goading? And if the suspect then attacks the policeman, you are saying the policeman would have no right to defend himself with his firearm if he is in a position where he feels he could incur great bodily harm or death? Like it or not, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watchman and was only doing what he was authorized to do by the community. What took place when Zimmerman approached Martin is questionable, but the evidence showed Zimmerman's account was at the very least believable. And the jury found no laws that were broken by Zimmerman.

 

My life and that of my family is more important then the life of the person trying to take them away. End of story

 

The thing about goading is that it is just words. It's your choice as to whether what someone says will hurt your feelings or make you angry and it is your choice what you will do in response. When it comes to battery, the choice is gone.