Sometime when you see a baby born to early or spontaneously aborts and it struggles to breath and kicks until it's finally succumbs. Then you tell me it's a decision for the mother to kill a child. Either life matters or it does not.
Now this is where it gets interesting. It was never argued classically, as far as I’m aware, that rational thought is the thing that distinguishes man from beast, and I don’t think it’s a compelling argument. There’s a clear gulf between the minds of humans and the minds of all animals, but there’s a broad range of mental and emotional capabilities among animals, some of which, while not as sophisticated as humans, can be described as rational thought. That doesn’t give them rights.
The philosophy of natural rights, including their origin, is a topic of remarkable depth. I’m looking forward to seeing what others have to say on it, but I’m mostly going to spectate for now because I’ve got a lot of work to get done tonight. But I will point out that in our Declaration of Independence, Jefferson, despite being possibly the most capable man alive at the time to expound on the origin of natural rights, chose to simply note that they are a self-evident truth. Much has been written by people smarter than all of us about the nature of human rights, but they all seemed to agree that, when you take a step back and look at nature, there’s a self-evident distinction between mankind and everything else, and it is the simple fact of being human that confers our rights. That’s not necessarily what it all comes down to, as much more has been written on the subject, but it’s a common line of thinking among 17th and 18th century philosophers. Most of them described this difference in terms of God creating mankind as separate and distinct from the rest of creation, but I don’t think that belief in God as the creator of all things is necessary to recognize the difference in nature between man and beast.
On Drudge today:
https://www.breitbart.com/education/2019/04/30/uc-san-diego-professor-compares-unborn-children-to-cancer/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20190430
UC San Diego Professor Compares Unborn Children to Cancer
by ALANA MASTRANGELO 30 Apr 2019
I’m not hellbent on seeing anything. I just wanted to understand your position, because you have been dodgy about addressing the threat to the rights of the child. I’m sorry that my preference to engage in open dialogue that examines an issue from all sides upset you.Well, it IS just that simple -- especially if you truly believe as I do that the government should not be in the business of dictating morality. Whether you like it or not, not everyone holds the same views on pregnancy you do. I am NOT advocating for abortion, though you seem hellbent on seeing it that way. I am, quite simply, against government intrusion into the very personal lives of it's citizens. I am also a staunch advocate for the right to die with dignity movement, and self-determination. These decisions should never be the purview of a government, as far as I am concerned.
Have a good evening, sir.
Even Democrats have the right to live, let alone a child who might grow up to vote Democrat.
People with strongly-held indefensible views tend to get very upset when asked to defend them. In conversations about abortion this seems to be the most common type of response from people who are pro-abortion.
No, just wanted to add to your thoughts.I guess you FAILED to read the rest of my post....
“Pro-abortion” = pro-abortion “rights”Lmao! Go back and read Post 30. What were you saying about "not being hellbent" on seeing my posts as advocating for abortion?? And I think this is the first time in my life someone has accused me of not being succinct!
Enter your email address to join: