You are the one asserting that Natural rights are God given, if you cannot provide evidence to prove that then you are assuming the premise which is a fallacy. Even the ideology of those philosophical beliefs stems from the minds of men ergo those rights that came form those beliefs cannot be deemed as natural .. natural means "Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind" There simply is no such thing as Natural rights, God given or not. The rights that you enjoy today are based on nothing more than the philosophical beliefs of other people ergo they are man made rights. God-given is defined as "Received from God:" or "Possessed by unquestionable right, as if by divine authority" - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/God-given in order to be logical the person asserting certain rights are "God given" must provide proof that God existed or at least did exist .. or are you saying that your rights are not based on logic, but on belief?
A woman can abort her fetus, just as she can remove her pinkey, or destroy her tv, but if you do any of that to her fetud, tv, or pinkey, you can be sued.
Does not mean a fetus is property, as far as a person being sued or convicted for non-consented injury to a fetus try looking up Quasi ie Quasi-rights that apply in only certain circumstances such as the Quasi-rights applied to the unborn in UVVA type laws and which apply in no other circumstances.
You mean to tell me to look up limitations on what one can do with their property? I have gun rights - that I don't have the right to shoot innocent people doesn't mean I only have quasi-rights. I have a dog - that it is illegal for me to abuse my dog does not mean that I do not own my dog. I have a computer - that I am not allowed to use it to hack and violate the privacy of others does not mean I don't own a computer. There are limitations on property rights - that doesn't mean that the property right itself doesn't exist.
God given rights are based in the understanding of the philosophy of the Enlightenment. You don't have to believe in it; You don't have to understand it; but your rights are indeed God given. I don't know how many times or how many ways I can explain it, but for some they will never get it.
Quasi does not mean limitations. Quasi - Almost as it were; as if; In the legal sense, the term denotes that one subject has certain characteristics in common with another subject but that intrinsic and material differences exist between them. - - - Updated - - - I "get" it plainly, what you don't "get" is those rights have been determined by man and not by nature or God.
What rights has Allah given us? Or is it Vishnu? Jehova? YWVH? Which God exactly? Which rights, exactly.
apparently you don't have to believe or prove God's existence in order to believe in "God" given rights
Okay, what is the guy's name? - - - Updated - - - God. Inalienable rights. - - - Updated - - - First thing you've said right.
There wasn't one man, there were many....and they were REAL actual living SPEAKING humans.....not a ""make believe-to-suit-my-purpose "" entity.
No, they are just "make believe men" that you can prove the existence of any more than I can prove the existence of God.
I know what quasi means: it's something that is apparently so, but not actually so. So in the case of "fetus rights", as you spoke of, if the its a matter of quasi rights then the fetus doesn't actually have any rights at all, it just appears to. Is that what you actually meant? ^_-
Is it even funnier than that it was the fundamentalists of 1860 who were the abolitionists? Or does that not fit a preferred historical narrative?
No, the quasi rights exist for the extent of the laws they apply to, just as a business can be deemed a person for the laws that apply. I gave you the definition of Quasi, fetuses do not have the same rights as adults, just like born children, neither are deemed as property, so unless you can come up with a legal precedence that shows that a fetus at any time has been deemed property then you are just projecting your opinion without facts.
This is what you said: What man? What men? Do they have names? Name them. Or are these men just imaginary or a delusion? Aren't you likewise assuming the premise when you cannot produce proof of the existence of these men while at the same time you require me to provided proof that God exists?
Good to see you ADMIT can't prove the existence of "god" ....LOL!!!!!! However, there were men who wrote things down , documented, real proof that men existed....in fact, there's lots of proof humans existed......do you need proof of that? .... don't you believe humans existed/exist ? That would be really weird....
Urukagina of Lagash circa 2350 BC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urukagina the Neo-Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu circa 2050 BC - Written by Ur-Nammu - http://www.ancient.eu/Ur-Nammu/ Cyrus the Great 6th Century BC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great Edicts of Ashoka - King Ashoka - http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html Constitution of Medina drafted by Muhammad in 622 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina Magna Carta - Unknown Writer. The above are considered some of the most influential writings concerning rights . .however it would be impossible to name every single person who has in some way contributed to the evolution of rights.
