Is the right to LIFE an inherent right?

The right to life exists, in as much as you choose to use that terminology. All born individuals maintain such rights. I find it hard to accept any claim that unborn humans can make any claim to any rights.

However, lets for a second accept that a fetus has rights. People also have the "right" to be self-sovereign. To make decisions regarding their lives and their bodies. Since those rights conflict in the occasion where a woman desires an end to her pregnancy, we are left with a question of competing rights. The right of a fetus to life vs the right of a woman to be sovereign over her body. In my mind there is absolutely NO question which should be of greater importance legally. The right of a woman to be sovereign over her body should trump the any right a fetus can make to life.

 

Morality is subjective. We all have our own personal opinions on what is moral and immoral.

 

Perhaps the OP would have done better to substitute "unalienable" for "inherent", and use the definition of the former contemplated in the DoI by its signers, thus avoiding any nonsense about such rights not being unalienable because they can be violated.

 

I wasn't attempting an argument about morality.

 

I disagree.

We use the word 'rights" and arguments about rights to communicate our thoughts, make laws and establish these things... But really it begins with an objective observation.

Like I said to Kant.

1. A tree is seen to be alive
2. We might ask - what RIGHT does the tree have to the life that it is living?
3. Answer : The life the tree is living - belongs to the tree that is living it.

Consider your life as your property - as I illustrated with the tree example... and you'll see that we agree.

It seems like you don't like seeing that ownership as a "right."

The only difference from what you are saying and what I am saying is how that (what you said) is tantamount to being a 'right.'

 

That would be a good poll question too.

I agree with you that there is a slight difference between an inalienable right and an inherent right.

This poll question was very specific for a very specific reason.

I was trying to see how many agree that the "right" we have to our lives is something that actually predates the DOI, laws or governments.

 

If you believe that, why did you vote no on the poll question?

That's a completely different debate for another time.

What you are talking about there - is whether or not a non sapient creatures "rights" can be argued by proxy.

Again, that's an important debate to have - but it's a side bar to the one for this thread.

Your point has been made and understood.

However, we can debate that point - unless we can agree that the child and (or) the mother ever had any inherent "rights" in the first place.

Can we?

So, this poll is (was) only to find that common ground.

"Do we have an inherent right to our lives?"

It's a question that has many implications in other debates.

The Zimmerman trial, abortions, etc...

But I'm trying to ask this question in its own context.

Objectively.

 

You misunderstand. I never implied there was any difference. What I'm getting at is that doing it my way provides a semantical benchmark that tends to head a lot of stupid arguments off at the pass, especially from atheists who find it convenient to deconstruct a phrase like "unalienable rights" as if the whole were no greater than the sum of the parts.

 

I think I see your point... but it's too late now anyway.

Sometimes (not always) a poor argument (even a stupid one) presented by an opponent can be used as a foil or sounding board to enlighten others.

Really stupid arguments do more harm for their cause than good. (No matter who THEY are).

 

Yeah, the tree has a "right" to life, huh? What does the tree do when approached by the King Of Diamonds?

Meanwhile, rights still don't exist. Let us know when you weigh a right, okay?

 

It strives to survive and t to hang onto the life it's living - I suppose.

I can't weigh love and hate either.

Do they not exist?

How about LIGHT?

Heat?

Radiation?

 

I'm a conservative but not a lifer.

 

What does that have to do with the poll question?

 

You don't even believe this. You only think you do because you've never explored this theory to its logical conclusion. Which becomes completely self-defeating.

 

To those who have voted NO in this thread.... I have to ask.

If someone murders you.... would they have violated your rights?

Do you have any rights to your life at all?

And you do have a right to your life.... where did it come from if it's not an inherent right?

 

Actually, I do believe it, and you have no idea what I've explored. I'm sure I've explored the topic more than you have, or you would come to the same conclusion as I, assuming you could control your emotions. Why don't you explain to me how morality can be anything but relative, since you've supposedly thought about it so much more than I.

 

Then you have no objection to slavery as long as the law allows for it. Right?

Think qualilty, not quantity.

 

Law depends on country. In the USA you have the death penalty so there is no legal right to life. I completely agree about there being no universal or absolute rights though some people seem to insist they exist without demonstrating where they come from.

 

They have violated your legal rights by definition since murder must contravene a law to be murder

Only if a power is able to grant it to you.

Since when?

Someone with a power to protect you granted you that right. The right extends only as far as they can protect you and keep granting the right.

 

Since the first human being existed. You're welcome.

And what that someone may give, he or she may take away. Right?

 

Out of 627 views - only NINE people think they have an inherent right to their life.

Just wow.

 

People clearly can be property. The existence of slavery demonstrates this. This your entire argument is nullified.

 

You're welcome?
So you are claiming thatt rights just came into into existence at some arbitary point with the emergence of Homo Sapiens? How did that happen?

Correct

 

It seems the "right to life" might be a bit of a trickier question to answer. Because to begin to answer you have to prove or disprove the existence of the self.

As you've stated already the right to defend oneself might be evident of this. But the question itself seems to be grounded in existentialism. and I am not well versed in logical formulas to begin to try to answer whether or not I truly exist or not.

So my answer for do I have a "right to life" is:

Not sure.

 

I never said anything about not having personal morality. Of course I have a problem with slavery, but I do not think slavery is objectively immoral anymore than eating live babies is.

Still waiting for someone to explain how exactly objective morality can exist.