Is the right to LIFE an inherent right?

In my previous poll, I asked:
" Is the right to self defense an inherent right? "

The responses have been great so far
with an overwhelming slant in the diriection of the affirmative.

This poll is to ask the (what might be obvious) follow up question. ​

"Is the right to life also an inerent right?"​

It seems illogical to me - that a right to self defense could exist - without a right to the thing you are defending but I welcome any and all thoughts and comments you might have. ​

 

I think I get where you're going with this, and it's the reason why that debate is framed in terms of defining a baby within a womb as "not alive" and thus you aren't killing it.

 

Sure sounds like it to me.

 

That's interesting but that isn't where I was going with my poll questions at all.

There are people who believe there are no such things as 'inherent rights' and people who believe that there are.

Specifically, the debate over whether or not we have an inherent right to our lives. That one tends to get pretty heated sometimes.

I've always held that we do have an inherent right to our lives and that right is evidenced by our "right to defend ourselves."

The right to self defense is a little less controversial.... and that's why I polled it first.

Please let me know if this helps clear anything up.

 

No. As it happens, everyone dies. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of the next breath, all end some day.

Does anyone have the right to kill another, in situations that do not involve prevention of violent aggression? Nope.

Babies have the right to not be murdered.

All those pro-abortion people know this, or they wouldn't panic at people calling babies babies.

 

I'm a bit confused by your comment.

How is the right to "not be murdered" different from an inherent "right to the life" you are living?

 

There is no right to life, life is earned when as a baby you in pain struggle to breath and cough out the fluids in you lung and screaming announce your here and alive then your right to life begins.

I debate against abortion on the grounds its taking away a likely resource to the society and on the grounds the potential life has value, and should not be wasted. Especially as options are out there not to get pregnant and as science evolves to the point where the choice could be moved to okay you don't want to carry the baby we will move it to this artificial womb, since it was a rape the government will take over all obligations.

 

My daughter was born unable to breathe on her own... so your comment disturbs me a little.

Do people on a ventilator have less a right to their life (in your opinion) than others do?

 

Okay granted medical aid may be needed but the act of learning to breath on ones own, the act of suffering makes life something you fight for as in developing a moral sense its work as in other aspects of life its not a right its earned by living. The same case if your brain dead and no longer viable your life is over.

I apologize I would say she is alive since she is fighting to live, that is being human.

 

I think we agree on more things than not - so please don't think I'm trying to pick a fight here - but how is a child in the womb fighting to live any less than a child just born is?

 

Go ahead, tell the man jumping from the flaming World Trade Center that he has the "right to life". People die. Get used to it, your turn is certainly on it's way.

Death is certain. The means of each death are not.

Death simply IS.

MURDER is the theft of one's innocent life by another intent on malicious harm. NOBODY has a right to initiate violence against another person, and most especially they do not have a right to take someone else's life.

Murder is death by deliberation.

 

PEOPLE are not "resources" to society. Trees are a resource. Grain is a resource. Even bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is a resource. Resources are PROPERTY.

People are not property.

 

What is an "inherent right"?

 

Inherrancy refers to a facet of something that is an intrinsic part of it.

We are asked if a right to life is inherrant.

As far as I see it rights are not a priori but they are granted by a power able to enforce it.

 

No, otherwise the government would take steps to ensure immortality for all instead of bowing to death's overall inevitability.We kill people every day. Every time you drive your car you kill maybe .00001 people who have bronchitis from the additional air pollution it causes.

We have no problem killing other human beings in wartime. Most cons (and myself) have no problem killing particularly heinous criminals.

The best defense of the right to abortion comes from the fact that the baby threatens the mother's life.

Ask any doctor, he'll tell you it varies but EVERY pregnancy IS a life-threatening event to the mother to some extent. The mother's right to terminate this threat to her life at any time and for any reason is part of her right to self-defense and that IS an inherent right. Anybody has it as long as they can defend themselves, and choose to. The government may make it illegal but they cannot take it away

Most conservatives are wildly inconsistent on this. They're quite alright with killing teenagers begging for their lives, and/or genociding whole populations that have not kissed Mighty Amerika's Holy Ass with a resounding enough smack, but let the life in question be in another person's body and all of a sudden they're Albert Schweitzer. I call Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The only reason they oppose abortion is that doing so penalizes all those Jezebels who go out tempting innocent men to SIN and then get themselves pregnant.

 

As long as we can, and wish to, defend our lives, we will. The right to defend one's life is inherent in the fact that we are alive in the first place. Government etal may violate that right but they cannot take it away.

 

Sure the right to life is inherent.

But when does life begin?

 

The ability to suffer, or feel anything for that matter (sentience) may appear several months before birth or first breath. The same with brain death, after about 5-6th month of pregnancy, foetal brain is developed enough so that it could no longer be considered brain dead even by more broad definitions of the word.

 

How exactly would the government acheive immortality for all?

What about when it doesn't threaten her right to life?

Please explain how self defence is an inherrant right?

Who are these teenagers begging for their life? Why do you spell america with a K?

- - - Updated - - -

1) I take it that you are vegan

2) WHere does this right derive from?

 

Nah, I love a nice juicy steak, medium rare.

Do I care if you think that's hypocritical? Not a bit. Such is life, we have to eat to survive and I love meat.

 

Yes and no. It's the inherent right of a person, but it is not the inherent right of a fetus/non-person.

 

Well, first you have to figure out at what point something has any rights at all, and then, figure out where rights come from.

All "MEN" are created equal. Is a zygote a man?

We have to eat to survive, so I guess I can cut your head off and eat it? I mean, I have to eat to survive, so anything goes, right? Even when it contradicts your previous claim.

 

So you are talking utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*) then. There is no right to life because you kill life in order to eat when you don't need to.

By your argument I can eat children so long as I love meat..

I note you were unable to answer any of the other questions.

- - - Updated - - -

How so? Who gave these rights?

 

this is why you can not force a women to risk her life to bring new life into this world, that is a choice only she can make

 

An epidermal cell is living human tissue, but being alive does not mean it has rights.

Once a zygote has proceeded through the gestative stages to the point that it has developed sentience, it should regarded as a person and its right to life protected. In the absence of superior conflicting rights such as the health of the fully-developed person upon whose womb it is dependent, it has achieved that inherent right.

Should that right be extended to microscopic cellular amalgams with no more facility for consciousness that a flake of skin? No. Such a State intrusion into a private matter is not justified where no person exists.

Folks will believe what they wish and are free to proselytize those notions, but resorting to the coercive power of government to impose an extreme view on everyone is not a "right."

.