I must respectfully disagree. Natural law is based upon the survival of the species and precedes natural rights. For example in addressing the Natural Right "Of Property" it is nature that establishes that the members of the species must be able to take from nature that which is required for the member (either individually, collectively, or both) because if the members do not survive based upon what nature provides then the species will eventually become extinct. Additionally the members of the species cannot take from a natural resource if they don't leave enough and as good as for other members of the species. If they do then the species as a whole will run out of what is necessary for it's survival and will become extinct. A historical example exists if we use but one assumption. In the 19th Century loggers clear-cut the giant redwoods leaving none for future generations for at least 1,000 years (the growth cycle for giant redwoods). If mankind required giant redwoods for survival then we would be extinct today because of the over-harvesting of giant redwoods in the 19th Century where they didn't leave "enough, and as good" as for future generations of mankind. Other natural laws also address conflict within the species, establishment of authority in society, and equality of the members of the species that nature establishes. For example all lions are born equal. The lion that becomes the leader of the pride is not designated by nature but instead the lion that self-asserts that authority by force becomes the leader of the pride. Of course lions don't typically kill each other in becoming the leader of the pride but people have no hesitation when it comes to killing other people to become "King" over others. The conflict between people can result in the total extinction of mankind today (nuclear war) making the Laws of Nature based upon survival of the species even more significant. Think about it for awhile. Natural law precedes natural rights and the natural law is based upon survival of a species. Incorrect use of the word "independent" when referring to the self. This is not addressing the person being able to provide all they require for survival but instead it's that the "independent person" is not a part of another person, not specifically dependent upon another person, not violating the rights of another person, and not imposing an involuntary obligation upon another person. The infant can eat, digest food and grow but the infant arguably needs assistance by someone to provide it with food, for example, but anyone can do that (not specifically dependent upon another person), the infant eating doesn't violate anyone's rights, and providing the food to the infant is a voluntary obligation. If no one steps up and provides food to the infant it will probably die of natural causes. Our laws today recognize this which is why the mother does not have to take guardianship of the infant at birth and can leave the infant at the hospital or take it to a hospital and leave it after birth. The "guardianship" is voluntary and once assumed the "guardian" has responsibilities under the law to provide for the infant. It was addressed in Roe v Wade: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#writing-USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO The "appellee" (attorney representing the abortion laws for Texas) was unable to find any precedent in history that would establish that a fetus was a person within the scope of the word "person" as used in the 14th Amendment (that provides equal protection for all persons). The fetal homicide laws are dependent upon a violation of the Rights of the Woman. The fetus in the womb cannot be killed without violating the rights of the woman and it's treated as a homicide because of the rights of the woman where the life of the "potential child in her womb" has been taken from her by an act of aggression. None of the fetal homicide laws in the United States refer to the fetus as being a person (such a law would be struck down as unconstitutional). Inheritance rights from the "moment of conception" only exist retroactively at live birth with the recognized "personhood" of the infant. Roe v Wade delves extensively into common law as it related to the quickening that was as much superstition as it was legal reasoning and it had little if anything to do with the "person" upon which our Rights are established and protected.
So when the data goes against your biases, you comfort yourself with the belief that we can't trust the data. Got it. I could do great things with that view on immigration, economics, and about anything else.
I have little trust that abortion providers provide accurate numbers on the unborn babies they kill, when they don't follow Federal dictates. http://www.heritage.org/health-care...anned-parenthood-affiliates-abortion-services
"heritage" is a conservative anti- women's rights site....so it's balderdash... Do please show proof that abortion providers don't report LEGAL medical procedures and/or state why they wouldn't.....
So, if we outlaw hard drugs like cocaine and heroin, secret crime rings that supply them will pop up. Best to legalize these drugs, then.
Making hard drugs legal creates chaos in society......abortion does not create chaos in society. Illegal drug use affects us all, abortion does not affect anyone and if you think it does explain how.
It may be "bad" to you but it does NOT cause chaos in society as making hard drugs legal would. Try really hard to address the post you quoted without shooting off in irrelevant directions . Making hard drugs legal creates chaos in society......abortion does not create chaos in society. Illegal drug use affects us all, abortion does not affect anyone and if you think it does explain how...
The ability to cause chaos in society is only one consideration for law. There are other factors that drafters of laws take into consideration.
It may be "bad" to you but it does NOT cause chaos in society as making hard drugs legal would. Try really hard to address the post you quoted without shooting off in irrelevant directions . Making hard drugs legal creates chaos in society......abortion does not create chaos in society. Illegal drug use affects us all, abortion does not affect anyone and if you think it does explain how...
Just so we're clear about how many lives we're talking about... Nazis killed roughly 11 million people during the Holocaust, including over 6 million Jews. Abortion in the U.S. has killed over 58 million unborn human lives since Roe v. Wade in 1973.
It may be "bad" to you but it does NOT cause chaos in society as making hard drugs legal would. Try really hard to address the post you quoted without shooting off in irrelevant directions . Making hard drugs legal creates chaos in society......abortion does not create chaos in society. Illegal drug use affects us all, abortion does not affect anyone and if you think it does explain how... - - - Updated - - - What has one got to do with the other??? Abortion is a legal medical procedure that hasn't killed a single person...
Why would having sex a million times be punishment.....sounds great to me if ya got the stamina Math has nothing to do with it....
The other person I was commenting too brought up the issues and referenced, and in a subtle way compared and contrasted abortions with holocaust victims. I was replying to that user. To answer your question however, I would say only this: During the Holocaust roughly 11 million innocent human lives including 6 million Jews were killed. The other user said the Nazis took away their rights. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973 abortions (as you point out, a legal medical procedure) in the U.S. has killed over 58 million innocent unborn human lives. The other user said society never gave them their rights. I find both scenarios to be an violent tragedy for mankind and a scar on humanity for I don't believe our rights come from man. When we allow man to give us rights, we also allow man to take those rights away. Our founders made note of this fact in the Declaration of Independence. For me, that is what both scenarios have to do with one another... a comparison of innocent human lives lost in such a grisly manner.
Then further reduction is possible. If natural law is predicated on survival of the species, then survival of the species as the good, ie; the right of the species to survive, is logically prior to natural law. Personally, I don't believe that an abstracted group, such as a species, can have rights. It works the same way for individual rights, though. If you reduce natural law to its necessary conditions, there's always a right at the bottom. "Independent self" was your wording. I asked you where you get that definition of "person". I still don't know where you get it from, but I guess that's not the best question. I don't see you coming out and saying it, but you seem to be suggesting that a legal definition of "person" is carefully tailored to exclude living unborn humans. Whether one has violated the rights of another is definitely an important question as it affects what rights each of them has at the time, but it is not part of any legal definition of "person". I think it would be better to go with one of the actual legal definitions of "person", such as "a human being", instead of contriving such a strained ad hoc definition. And then just argue that the fetus has violated the rights of the mother. When you say "the historical "legal precedent" establishes that the "person" originates at birth" in a discussion about Roe v Wade, it's a bit disappointing when you offer Roe v Wade itself as an answer to the question "what legal precedent?".
I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that no opinion on Roe v Wade establishes that the "person" originates at birth.
Statement of facts to illustrate the magnitude of the what is at stake is raising the argument to the level of a compassionate, intelligent, loving, caring, thoughtful, and logical human being. Ignoring the innocent loss of human life and the cost to society is a callus way to live as a human being.
So I guess you never learned that the Constitution is the supreme LAW of the Land? Your feeble attempt at a semantic deflection failed miserably. Just as you have repeatedly failed to even attempt to make a "Constitutional argument that a law is wrong" either.
Making a comparison that inane says volumes about the mindset of those who are opposed to Constitutional rights. It is worth noting that during the period that Publius-Bob refers to about this country was allegedly a "Christian nation" so at least 70% plus of those 58 million were "killed" by Christians. The Bible has a description of how to perform an abortion (Numbers 5:11-31,). So the question needs to be asked is how many times has that abortion procedure been used during the last 2,000 years? Two billion times give or take a couple of hundred million either way sounds like a good guess to me. That puts a whole different perspective on the matter, doesn't it?
There is no one else to give us rights but our fellow humans. I find it quite sick to compare real actual born people (Jews and others, like women, targeted in wars) with fetuses. To compare what they went through with the short comfy "life" and quick death of an aborted fetus is appalling....and shows either a total lack of humanity or a total lack of knowledge of how Jews and others died...probably both...
