On 5/19/22, Izaac <izaac@setec.org> wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 05:46:21PM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 06:14:27AM -0400, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many wrote:
fetuses get rights if animals get rights
So your proposed solution to the killing unborn humans is to reduce the dignity of all humans to slaughterable animals?
No! Does what I say imply this to you?
It certainly does. Because what you say only makes sense if fetuses have no rights and animals have some rights. Only in that context can a nebulous someone let a fetus "get" the rights of an animal. (Which are what, incidentally?)
Now, counter that with the concepts of rights as established in the United States. Therein, the rights of Men are endowed by the Creator and animals are a resource to be managed as Men see fit. In such a context, a Man is not "elevated" to the position of a resource. The start higher and are reduced.
I've heard one or two others describe this. Is it from the Bible? I see rights as something people disagree on, that laws dictate, etc. I'd consider that a fetus has a right to have a chance to be born, and that animals have a right to live a reasonable animal-life. I wouldn't let a fetus manage my herd, but if my religion dictate to, then that's important. I'd personally derive those rights logically: if you didn't let fetuses get born, there would no longer be people; if you didn't let animals live, there would not longer be meat. You could cast these in terms of human's managing resources, too. Humans have a right to have animals and children in their world.
The question -- in a very real, legal sense -- becomes the determination as to when creation occurs. Conception or birth? Which involves the interesting philosophical discussion, "Who is the creator?"
Everything is created slowly. Nothing is instant.
I think it ought to go without argument that the one described by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence is the Divine Creator. But even the most atheistic secular humanist cannot escape the act of creation being the combined activities of a man and woman. This points directly at conception -- since birth is a consequence of that act and a woman cannot clone herself.
Now if you want to leave the United States for a place whose laws are structured around the concept that the monarch (or heaven forbid a state) owns the person as property and conveys rights at their discretion, you are welcome to do so. But here in America, we shot an awful lot of Englishmen and other Americans to establish the novel system which I describe. And will undoubtedly shoot an awful lot of anyone else that tries to revert it to one of persons as animal property.
Do you cast the united states as having a nonsecular government? I see the government as secular; this is how I was taught to see it in grade school ('separation of church and state'). Your view that the government is nonsecular is new information for me.