On 5/19/22, Izaac <[email protected]> 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.
