Ron Paul - Considerations on the meaning of life etcetera

pollydolly · **Joined:** Aug 24, 2007 **Posts:** 580

This poignant story seems apt for this thread - especially the aborting of teenagers

http://www.theonion.com/video/braindead-teen-only-capable-of-rolling-eyes-and-te,27225/

ps200306 · **Joined:** Apr 1, 2010 **Posts:** 3746

pollydolly wrote:

This poignant story seems apt for this thread - especially the aborting of teenagers

http://www.theonion.com/video/braindead-teen-only-capable-of-rolling-eyes-and-te,27225/

Excellent

ps200306 · **Joined:** Apr 1, 2010 **Posts:** 3746

Madness of Crowds wrote:

I've generally tended towards Bentham's view that rights exist only as defined by law or custom, established by consent, coercion or consensus and thus are just prevailing circumstances. The feeling that people should have certain rights is not the same as saying that they have those rights. As the man said, "Hunger is not bread." As such, I find the idea of "inalienable" or "fundamental" (as in objectively existing, rather than simple and basic from which others can be derived by deduction and analogy) rights to be nonsensical.
You might have the right to receive medical treatment after falling from your window, but that right isn't inalienable. The only inalienable right you have in those circumstances is the right to accelerate towards the centre of the earth at the regulation 9.81 metres per second per second.

So the universe has Laws, but humans only have customs!

Frivolity aside, I think you have put your finger on it. It comes down to the difference between natural law and positive law. Inalienable rights are hard to justify without a concept of natural law, and natural law -- Enlightenment defenders notwithstanding -- are increasingly seen as thinly veiled religion, and therefore not something that sophisticated people subscribe to. We have the interesting situation that a great deal of customary law is based on natural law, including international law based on the UN Charter and UN Declaration of Human Rights. But I guess that will all get unwound over time. Meanwhile, the abortion issue is where the rubber definitively hits the road, with religionists and non-religionists unable in principle to agree on any compromises (and the two sides regarding each other as extreme fundamentalists... which kind of brings us full circle to the comments about Ron Paul at the beginning of this thread).

ditch dweller · **Posted:** Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:05 am

ps200306 wrote:

Madness of Crowds wrote:

I've generally tended towards Bentham's view that rights exist only as defined by law or custom, established by consent, coercion or consensus and thus are just prevailing circumstances. The feeling that people should have certain rights is not the same as saying that they have those rights. As the man said, "Hunger is not bread." As such, I find the idea of "inalienable" or "fundamental" (as in objectively existing, rather than simple and basic from which others can be derived by deduction and analogy) rights to be nonsensical.
You might have the right to receive medical treatment after falling from your window, but that right isn't inalienable. The only inalienable right you have in those circumstances is the right to accelerate towards the centre of the earth at the regulation 9.81 metres per second per second.

So the universe has Laws, but humans only have customs!

Frivolity aside, I think you have put your finger on it. It comes down to the difference between natural law and positive law. Inalienable rights are hard to justify without a concept of natural law, and natural law -- Enlightenment defenders notwithstanding -- are increasingly seen as thinly veiled religion, and therefore not something that sophisticated people subscribe to. We have the interesting situation that a great deal of customary law is based on natural law, including international law based on the UN Charter and UN Declaration of Human Rights. But I guess that will all get unwound over time. Meanwhile, the abortion issue is where the rubber definitively hits the road, with religionists and non-religionists unable in principle to agree on any compromises (and the two sides regarding each other as extreme fundamentalists... which kind of brings us full circle to the comments about Ron Paul at the beginning of this thread).

But there is no 'compromise', women either control their bodies or they don't. That control will not be freely given, just look at the situation in Ireland, so it must be taken.

ps200306 · **Joined:** Apr 1, 2010 **Posts:** 3746

ditch dweller wrote:

But there is no 'compromise', women either control their bodies or they don't. That control will not be freely given, just look at the situation in Ireland, so it must be taken.

You're intentionally missing the point, of course (which proves my point). If humans are humans with "inalienable" rights from conception, then the argument for women's control over their bodies has about the same force as that of a parent killing their teenager because they didn't fancy cooking dinner. But the case for human rights from conception generally relies on a natural law argument. It boils down to whether you accept a case for a natural law... which probably nowadays means the difference between a religious and non-religious outlook.

(Although, a lot of people don't want to throw the natural law baby out with the bathwater, because of the uncomfortable notion that then all rights are arbitrary, including their own right to life. So another angle is to doubt the humanity of the foetus, or to just stick the head in the sand and accept "whatever the law says"... both of those angles have been expressed on this thread).

Madness of Crowds · **Joined:** Apr 4, 2010 **Posts:** 1791

ps200306 wrote:

all rights are arbitrary, including their own right to life.

This, essentially, is my position. I don't mind rights being arbitrary,as long as they aren't capricious. I ask for internal consistency.

There may be good pragmatic reasons for establishing certain rights as a matter of consensus, given the current state of things, but there's nothing inescapable about them. Different circumstances would call for different rights.

I have no objection to the principles stated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and indeed approve of them, but for pragmatic reasons, because they allow me to live a comfortable life in a stable society and through habitual familiarity, instill a mindset that increases the probability of others having the same attitudes and acting in accordance with them. The justification in terms of natural law, though is IMHO, drivel. Natural law is imaginary and we have societal laws and social conventions, precisely because it is imaginary. If the right to liberty were natural and inalienable, it would be no more possible to enslave somebody than for water to flow uphill spontaneously.

To summarise:

"An object remains at rest or moves with a constant velocity unless acted upon by a resultant force." is a law of nature.
Irish statute and case law are societal laws.
"All men are created free and equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." isn't a law of any kind. It is an opinion.

ditch dweller · **Posted:** Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:21 pm

Further to observations about choice/feminism/equality being regarded as an assault on patriarchy and Christian supremacy by the right, the presidential election has added fuel to the backlash.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/us/po ... l?_r=1&hpw

Quote:

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s compromise plan to require free insurance coverage of contraceptives for women touched off a tumultuous debate on Thursday in which members of Congress mixed political theater with soul-searching over potential threats to religious liberty.

Lutheran and Baptist clergymen and an Orthodox rabbi joined a Roman Catholic bishop in telling lawmakers that Mr. Obama’s latest policy of shifting the responsibility for paying for the contraceptives from religious institutions to their health insurers was unworkable and did not allay concerns about government entanglement with religion.

“There is no real difference” between the original requirement and the attempted compromise, said John H. Garvey, president of the Catholic University of America, where 81 percent of undergraduates and 59 percent of graduate students are Catholic.

The first of two lineups of witnesses at a House committee hearing on Thursday consisted of five men.

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, asked: “Where are the women? It’s outrageous that the Republicans would not allow a single individual representing the tens of millions of women who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services, including family planning.”

ditch dweller · **Posted:** Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:29 pm

ditch dweller wrote:

Further to observations about choice/feminism/equality being regarded as an assault on patriarchy and Christian supremacy by the right, the presidential election has added fuel to the backlash.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/us/po ... l?_r=1&hpw

Quote:

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s compromise plan to require free insurance coverage of contraceptives for women touched off a tumultuous debate on Thursday in which members of Congress mixed political theater with soul-searching over potential threats to religious liberty.

Lutheran and Baptist clergymen and an Orthodox rabbi joined a Roman Catholic bishop in telling lawmakers that Mr. Obama’s latest policy of shifting the responsibility for paying for the contraceptives from religious institutions to their health insurers was unworkable and did not allay concerns about government entanglement with religion.

“There is no real difference” between the original requirement and the attempted compromise, said John H. Garvey, president of the Catholic University of America, where 81 percent of undergraduates and 59 percent of graduate students are Catholic.

The first of two lineups of witnesses at a House committee hearing on Thursday consisted of five men.

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, asked: “Where are the women? It’s outrageous that the Republicans would not allow a single individual representing the tens of millions of women who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services, including family planning.”

Even the neo liberals over at the New Republic are getting worried about what appears to be an all out assault on access to contraception.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/100 ... parenthood

Quote:

When Foster Friess, the billionaire backer of Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign, suggested yesterday that women should simply place aspirin between their legs rather than use contraception, it was the latest salvo of a culture war that has been raging for months. “Culture war,” in fact, increasingly seems too vague a term for the current conversation in the country about women’s rights. That conversation is acquiring an increasingly retrograde tone, one that should cause liberals to be alarmed.

Puck may be Famous · **Joined:** May 3, 2008 **Posts:** 2040

Peter Schiff rants about the economic effects of free birth control as part of employer provided healthcare.

He's pro-choice and Jewish so the moral aspect dosn't really bother him.

ditch dweller · **Posted:** Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:42 pm

Puck may be Famous wrote:

Peter Schiff rants about the economic effects of free birth control as part of employer provided healthcare.

He's pro-choice and Jewish so the moral aspect dosn't really bother him.

Nothing to do with health then, birth control must be a lifestyle choice. In Schiffs world neither the state nor employers provide any benefits.

ditch dweller · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:50 pm

Another front in the war over womens bodies. This time mandating an invasive ultra sound procedure before having an abortion, seemingly designed to emotionally blackmail women.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/fe ... itute-rape.

Quote:

The ultrasound bill, one of two of the most restrictive anti-abortion measures heard in the state in recent years, could force women undergoing first trimester abortions to submit to a vaginally invasive procedure, offer them images of the foetus and have the resulting image lie on their medical file for seven years.

BoyRacer · **Joined:** Jul 26, 2009 **Posts:** 10088

Walter Block with a particular libertarian view on abortion - (skip to 25 minutes in)
http://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-re ... ter-block/

Ron Paul - Considerations on the meaning of life etcetera

Who is online