"Rights are special privileges the government gives you."

[jon_berzerk]

And yet this thread is perfect example of how the far left does not understand what a "right" is..

a perfect example

--LOL

 

[ricechickie]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Nope. The founding Fathers said it, our rights are given by God. Whether or not libtards socialists say otherwise makes no difference.

I guess God hates those other countries...

you guess?.....

Yes, I guess He does, if He only saw fit to give rights to the inhabitants of this country, but no others.....

Of course, I've heard that God also gets involved in football games, which means He takes sides all the time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny how I answered your question before you asked it:
The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change the fact that you have rights; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.
That is, government exists because we have rights.

Now, how about answering this::
Why are you so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law?
so you can't legally or physically exercise a right, but you think you still have it?
seems like you've confuse what you want with what you have.
and yes, rights are why we create government. we create government to protect the rights we want. we don't have them though until others recognize that we do - which means that the government protects them.

i'm set on the idea that government grants rights because it's true. i suppose you could say that we grant them to each other through government, which is probably more accurate.

is there any text in the constition or federal law that says we get our rights from somewhere else? (incidentally it wouldn't matter. we could say in the constitution that all our rights are granted by a magical stone. wouldn't make it true.)

Government that can grant rights can also take them away. Luckily the founding fathers knew better than you.

Did the founders create a government that cannot take away the right to an abortion?

The Founders did not create a right to abortion; a Supreme Court hearing a phony case based on a lie created a right to abortion.

Oh, how convenient. You want rights to be God given, but you're also claiming your right to decide what rights God gave us.

This is proof beyond a reasonable doubt how pathetic this conservative argument is.

I say the Declaration of Independence asserts that the Creator endowed women with the right to an abortion, under the general categories of Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny how I answered your question before you asked it:
The fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights does not change the fact that you have rights; the fact that someone may be able to overpower you and keep you from exercising those rights is why we created government.
That is, government exists because we have rights.

Now, how about answering this::
Why are you so set on on the idea that the government grants rights when you freely admit that there is no text to that effect in the constitution and/or federal law?
so you can't legally or physically exercise a right, but you think you still have it?
seems like you've confuse what you want with what you have.
and yes, rights are why we create government. we create government to protect the rights we want. we don't have them though until others recognize that we do - which means that the government protects them.

i'm set on the idea that government grants rights because it's true. i suppose you could say that we grant them to each other through government, which is probably more accurate.

is there any text in the constition or federal law that says we get our rights from somewhere else? (incidentally it wouldn't matter. we could say in the constitution that all our rights are granted by a magical stone. wouldn't make it true.)

Government that can grant rights can also take them away. Luckily the founding fathers knew better than you.

Did the founders create a government that cannot take away the right to an abortion?

The Founders did not create a right to abortion; a Supreme Court hearing a phony case based on a lie created a right to abortion.

A 'right' is only valid wherein the exercise of that right, does not usurp the means of another to exercise their own right(s).

As a result, there can be no right to 'abortion', as abortion strips the life from another human.

How do you the Creator doesn't view the fetus as something other than a born person? Did He tell you that?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

When atheists try to turn a political thread into an opportunity to spread his message of hate, hopelessness, and despair, I disengage. There's no reasoning with fool that hath said in his heart "there is no God".

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How do you the Creator doesn't view the fetus as something other than a born person? Did He tell you that?[sic]

A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility...


THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.


There's nothing complex about any of this. Nothing at all... .

 

[NYcarbineer]

How do you the Creator doesn't view the fetus as something other than a born person? Did He tell you that?[sic]

A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility...


THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.


There's nothing complex about any of this. Nothing at all... .

You're claiming God given rights, but you're asserting Man-given rights. You're claiming that you have the power to speak for the unknown, silent Creator on what you suppose his position is on what are and are not rights.

More proof that rights come from Government, not from supernatural beings.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I say the Declaration of Independence asserts that the Creator endowed women with the right to an abortion, under the general categories of Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

Of course you do. That is what reason requires that evil MUST SAY!

In truth however, Rights are only possible where such are recognized in everyone, as everyone is equal before God. Therefore, any right you possess can never be exercised to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

Thus, where Abortion were a right, the exercising of that right would not prevent another from exercising their own rights. SO... because the very act of abortion results in the taking of a human life, we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're claiming God given rights, but you're asserting Man-given rights.

Am I? ... Show me where I did so.

You're claiming that you have the power to speak for the unknown, silent Creator on what you suppose his position is on what are and are not rights.

Did I? Where did I do that? Show me and the readers where I did anything of the kind.

Now here is the coolest part: When you fail to demonstrate the veracity of ANY of that which you assert as TRUTH, to be true... you will be conceding to ME, that you advanced as truth, that which you KNEW TO BE FALSE.

And guess what that will make you... ?

LOL!

Go ahead, GUESS!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Huh... nothing comin' to mind?

LOL!

This could NOT GET any easier.

 

[HenryBHough]

Hey, Democrats LIKE being oppressed.

If they didn't they'd leave the party that tells them what they'e allowed to think. Or do they have goons (unionized, no doubt) guarding the exists?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're claiming God given rights, but you're asserting Man-given rights.

Am I? ... Show me where I did so.

You're claiming that you have the power to speak for the unknown, silent Creator on what you suppose his position is on what are and are not rights.

Did I? Where did I do that? Show me and the readers where I did anything of the kind.

Now here is the coolest part: When you fail to demonstrate the veracity of ANY of that which you assert as TRUTH, to be true... you will be conceding to ME, that you advanced as truth, that which you KNEW TO BE FALSE.

And guess what that will make you... ?

LOL!

Go ahead, GUESS!

Where you insisted that abortion is not a right. Who decides what are or are not rights?

 

[Conservative65]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Wrong. Rights are restricted by governments. Everyone has a right to free speech. That it's not absolute has nothing to do with whether or not that right exist but to what extent the GOVERNMENT allows it. Restrictions about not yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre aren't put in place by the right but by the government limiting that right. Some governments such as N. Korea choose to limit them drastically. That doesn't mean the right doesn't exist just the ability to and degree to which it can be exercised.

 

[Conservative65]

You're claiming God given rights, but you're asserting Man-given rights.

Am I? ... Show me where I did so.

You're claiming that you have the power to speak for the unknown, silent Creator on what you suppose his position is on what are and are not rights.

Did I? Where did I do that? Show me and the readers where I did anything of the kind.

Now here is the coolest part: When you fail to demonstrate the veracity of ANY of that which you assert as TRUTH, to be true... you will be conceding to ME, that you advanced as truth, that which you KNEW TO BE FALSE.

And guess what that will make you... ?

LOL!

Go ahead, GUESS!

Where you insisted that abortion is not a right. Who decides what are or are not rights?

Abortion isn't a right. Government don't decide what rights you have. Government decide to what degree you can exercise the ones you have.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm set on the idea that government grants rights because it's true.

Then you should have no problem citing the text from the Constitution or federal law that grants you the right to, say, free speech.
Please proceed.
Absent this, your position has not a leg to stand on.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

THIS IS YOU>>>

How do you the Creator doesn't view the fetus as something other than a born person? Did He tell you that?[sic]

Understand? That was you asking me to clarify a point.

So here's me doing THAT>>>

A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.


There's nothing complex about any of this. Nothing at all... .

Did ya see that?

That was me demonstrating that we KNOW God's will through God's ACTIONS; with his ACTIONS being the WAY HE DESIGNED THE HUMAN BODY... THE DESIGN DETERMINES THE PURPOSE!

If you cannot understand that, then you're not qualified for participation in public discourse. Which could very well be the case. A LOT of people simply are not qualified for freedom. And that is why slavery was so prevalent for so long.

So anywho... you then came back, asserted that I had 'said' things which I had not, you then returned to concede that you knew when you asserted that which was NOT TRUE, that such was not true proving yourself to be a LIAR. Which is again inevitable, given that one can't BE a Liberal and NOT BE A LIAR! As Left-think rests entirely upon relativism and relativism is deceit.

So next we see you again, returning to assert that which is false as truth. This time however you're relegated to almost pleading that you 'feel' that abortion is a RIGHT and someone who disagrees doesn't change that...

LOL! It is truly ADORABLE... so richly pathetic.

So HERE ya are, doin' THAT:

Where you insisted that abortion is not a right. Who decides what are or are not rights?

Ok?

The thing about a debate, is that one must read (Hear) the actual contest... where one merely pretends that the contest wasn't advanced, thus pretending that the specific points central to such do not exist, it tends to slow the process down.

Which is where we're at now... requiring that we should review:

1- A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

2- That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

3- Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

4- And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

5- We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.

Now with regard to what is and is not a right: As I said earlier:

1- Rights are only possible where such are recognized in everyone, as everyone is equal before God.

2- Therefore, any right you possess can never be exercised to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

3- Thus, where 'Abortion were a right', the exercising of that right would not prevent another from exercising their own rights.

4- SO... because the very act of abortion results in the taking of a thoroughly defenseless, utterly innocent human life, thus precluding that human from exercising its right to its life... we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'.

And THAT is how we "KNOW" what a right IS and is NOT. With the added benefit of demonstrating that there is NO POTENTIAL FOR ABORTION TO 'BE' A RIGHT.

Now those are facts which demonstrate what I have said... therefore where you come back and say "You said X or Y", if X and Y do not match this record, you'll again be demonstrated to BE a LIAR! (Which is not that big a deal, given the axiomatic require in nature that to BE a liberal, is to BE a liar. I'm just recording that process within this discussion, for use at another time. I wanted you to know, that this call is being recorded)

 

[NYcarbineer]

THIS IS YOU>>>

How do you the Creator doesn't view the fetus as something other than a born person? Did He tell you that?[sic]

Understand? That was you asking me to clarify a point.

So here's me doing THAT>>>

A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.


There's nothing complex about any of this. Nothing at all... .

Did ya see that?

That was me demonstrating that we KNOW God's will through God's ACTIONS; with his ACTIONS being the WAY HE DESIGNED THE HUMAN BODY... THE DESIGN DETERMINES THE PURPOSE!

If you cannot understand that, then you're not qualified for participation in public discourse. Which could very well be the case. A LOT of people simply are not qualified for freedom. And that is why slavery was so prevalent for so long.

So anywho... you then came back, asserted that I had 'said' things which I had not, you then returned to concede that you knew when you asserted that which was NOT TRUE, that such was not true proving yourself to be a LIAR. Which is again inevitable, given that one can't BE a Liberal and NOT BE A LIAR! As Left-think rests entirely upon relativism and relativism is deceit.

So next we see you again, returning to assert that which is false as truth. This time however you're relegated to almost pleading that you 'feel' that abortion is a RIGHT and someone who disagrees doesn't change that...

LOL! It is truly ADORABLE... so richly pathetic.

So HERE ya are, doin' THAT:

Where you insisted that abortion is not a right. Who decides what are or are not rights?

Ok?

The thing about a debate, is that one must read (Hear) the actual contest... where one merely pretends that the contest wasn't advanced, thus pretending that the specific points central to such do not exist, it tends to slow the process down.

Which is where we're at now... requiring that we should review:

1- A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

2- That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

3- Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

4- And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

5- We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.

Now with regard to what is and is not a right: As I said earlier:

1- Rights are only possible where such are recognized in everyone, as everyone is equal before God.

2- Therefore, any right you possess can never be exercised to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

3- Thus, where 'Abortion were a right', the exercising of that right would not prevent another from exercising their own rights.

4- SO... because the very act of abortion results in the taking of a thoroughly defenseless, utterly innocent human life, thus precluding that human from exercising its right to its life... we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'.

And THAT is how we "KNOW" what a right IS and is NOT.

Now those are facts which demonstrate what I have said... therefore where you come back and say "You said X or Y", if X and Y do not match this record, you'll again be demonstrated to BE a LIAR! (Which is not that big a deal, given the axiomatic require in nature that to BE a liberal, is to BE a liar. I'm just recording that process within this discussion, for use at another time. I wanted you to know, that this call is being recorded)

You say:

"we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'"

So you admit that it is in fact men who decide what are and are not 'rights', and thus you concede there are not in fact any natural or God given rights,

but only rights that men arbitrarily decide are rights.

Therefore, men, acting from positions of power in Government, decide what your rights will or will not be.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Wrong. Rights are restricted by governments. Everyone has a right to free speech. That it's not absolute has nothing to do with whether or not that right exist but to what extent the GOVERNMENT allows it. Restrictions about not yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre aren't put in place by the right but by the government limiting that right. Some governments such as N. Korea choose to limit them drastically. That doesn't mean the right doesn't exist just the ability to and degree to which it can be exercised.

Government doesn't restrict the right... there is no potential for a RIGHT, where the exercise of such infringes upon the means of another to exercise their own rights. (Government is merely pointing out that you have no right to injure another through speech.)

Because I have a right to my good health, where you exercise your right to speak, while failing to bear your responsibility to NOT DO SO TO THE PREDICTABLE INURY OF ANOTHER'S MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN RIGHTS, you forfeit your right to remain free, as you've shown poor judgment, thus are not worthy of the trust that you will exercise good judgement and not injure others..

Thus you're morning lesson in: THE BASIS OF WESTERN JURISPRUDENCE.

 

[Conservative65]

do people in north korea have the right to vote?

Point? Oh, you have none.

the point is that rights are given by governments. we have a right to free speech. not everyone country has that. freedom of religion/press/assembly? that's not universal. right to bear arms? nope. equal protection? please.

so what's the problem again?

Wrong. Rights are restricted by governments. Everyone has a right to free speech. That it's not absolute has nothing to do with whether or not that right exist but to what extent the GOVERNMENT allows it. Restrictions about not yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre aren't put in place by the right but by the government limiting that right. Some governments such as N. Korea choose to limit them drastically. That doesn't mean the right doesn't exist just the ability to and degree to which it can be exercised.

Government doesn't restrict the right... there is no potential for a RIGHT, where the exercise of such infringes upon the means of another to exercise their own rights.

Therefore, because I have a right to my good health, where you exercise your right to speak, while failing to bear your responsibility to NOT DO SO TO THE PREDICTABLE INURY OF ANOTHER'S MEANS TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN RIGHTS, you forfeit your right to remain free, as you've shown poor judgment, thus are not worthy of the trust that you will exercise good judgement and not injure others..

Thus you're morning lesson in: THE BASIS OF WESTERN JURISPRUDENCE.

If it weren't for laws passed by various levels of government, I would have an unlimited ability to exercise my right to free speech. It's though legislation that I can't make false claims about you that cause you harm. It's not the lack of a right but the government telling me to what extent I can exercise it. Under a system of anarchy, I could do or say anything. A direct result of anarchy is a system of government. When governments come into being, they start limiting the exercise of something I had before the government existed.

 

[Conservative65]

THIS IS YOU>>>

How do you the Creator doesn't view the fetus as something other than a born person? Did He tell you that?[sic]

Understand? That was you asking me to clarify a point.

So here's me doing THAT>>>

A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.


There's nothing complex about any of this. Nothing at all... .

Did ya see that?

That was me demonstrating that we KNOW God's will through God's ACTIONS; with his ACTIONS being the WAY HE DESIGNED THE HUMAN BODY... THE DESIGN DETERMINES THE PURPOSE!

If you cannot understand that, then you're not qualified for participation in public discourse. Which could very well be the case. A LOT of people simply are not qualified for freedom. And that is why slavery was so prevalent for so long.

So anywho... you then came back, asserted that I had 'said' things which I had not, you then returned to concede that you knew when you asserted that which was NOT TRUE, that such was not true proving yourself to be a LIAR. Which is again inevitable, given that one can't BE a Liberal and NOT BE A LIAR! As Left-think rests entirely upon relativism and relativism is deceit.

So next we see you again, returning to assert that which is false as truth. This time however you're relegated to almost pleading that you 'feel' that abortion is a RIGHT and someone who disagrees doesn't change that...

LOL! It is truly ADORABLE... so richly pathetic.

So HERE ya are, doin' THAT:

Where you insisted that abortion is not a right. Who decides what are or are not rights?

Ok?

The thing about a debate, is that one must read (Hear) the actual contest... where one merely pretends that the contest wasn't advanced, thus pretending that the specific points central to such do not exist, it tends to slow the process down.

Which is where we're at now... requiring that we should review:

1- A fetus is human life. That's not even a debatable point.

2- That it is in an early stage of development doesn't change that, thus such is irrelevant.

3- Now, because it's developmental stage is such that it is in the womb of the individual who conceived it, through her own willful and wanton behavior, that means that she is solely responsible for sustaining that life.

4- And where she is also the person seeking to take its life from it... as a means to avoid her responsibility:
THAT IS YOUR FIRST CLUE AS TO: HOW THAT WHICH CREATED HER... 'looks at it.'

5- We 'know' this by his design of the human body... and through the soundly reasoned, demonstrable laws he provided to govern human behavior.

Now with regard to what is and is not a right: As I said earlier:

1- Rights are only possible where such are recognized in everyone, as everyone is equal before God.

2- Therefore, any right you possess can never be exercised to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

3- Thus, where 'Abortion were a right', the exercising of that right would not prevent another from exercising their own rights.

4- SO... because the very act of abortion results in the taking of a thoroughly defenseless, utterly innocent human life, thus precluding that human from exercising its right to its life... we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'.

And THAT is how we "KNOW" what a right IS and is NOT.

Now those are facts which demonstrate what I have said... therefore where you come back and say "You said X or Y", if X and Y do not match this record, you'll again be demonstrated to BE a LIAR! (Which is not that big a deal, given the axiomatic require in nature that to BE a liberal, is to BE a liar. I'm just recording that process within this discussion, for use at another time. I wanted you to know, that this call is being recorded)

You say:

"we (those people capable of reason) readily recognize that there is no potential for a 'right' to 'abortion'"

So you admit that it is in fact men who decide what are and are not 'rights', and thus you concede there are not in fact any natural or God given rights,

but only rights that men arbitrarily decide are rights.

Therefore, men, acting from positions of power in Government, decide what your rights will or will not be.

If anarchy existed, I could say anything I wanted without worrying about being punished by the government. When governments come into being, a natural result of anarchy, they do nothing more than limit what I already had. You confuse the government restricting the use of rights with granting them.

Then you should have no problem citing the text from the Constitution or federal law that grants you the right to, say, free speech.
Please proceed.
Absent this, your position has not a leg to stand on.