Right to life, or belief in God.

[ConCap]

One can’t play God and believe in God at the same time.

Short of locking ones self in a room their whole life, they have no control over life or death.
Therefore one has no right to “life“ (God).
What one does have, is a right to “a life” full of liberty and happiness (Constitution).

When I read “life” in the Constitution, I don’t see it as the "life" used in “life or death” (God).
I see it as the "life" used in “it’s my life, and I will live it the way I want, with in the rule of law” (Constitution).

I think this is where most of the problem comes from. The Socialist use the "life" from “life or death“ (God), to try to make it “Constitutional “ and split the right, and it has worked.

The Constitution can not guarantee “life“ (God). Which is why it is not a federal issue.
It can guarantee you “a life” of liberty and happiness if you live by it.


I use God, because he is my creator, not to imply he is yours.

THIS IS HOW I READ IT. NOT HOW IT IS OR IS NOT.


Which "life" do you think the Constitution is talking about?

The life as used in “life or death" (God).
Or the life in “it’s my life, I will live it the way I want, with in the rule of law” (Constitution).

There is no right or wrong in this question.

This is a grassroots issue.

 

[Gary4Liberty]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[Odin]

In my opinion, there are no rights. There is a very philosophically defined idea of what freedom is, and what a free society consists of. But to say that it is evident that "rights" exist in this world is a little foolish imo. I WANT freedom, the fact that it is so easily taken away is proof that there is no metaphysical "right" to it, except that the desire for freedom exists in the human spirit.

 

[Babylon]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I'm sure Locke and the philosophers from whence this language came were quite precise in their meaning.

But, to a colonist, who was being urged to literally take up arms against the British, perhaps it was understood in terms of justification.

That is, when is it justified to kill? To rebel?
When one's life is threatened.
When one's liberty is threatened.
And, when one's pursuit of happiness (i.e. property rights) is threatened.

Don't know if I agree with that....

But, it apparently was persuasive to not a few folks who weren't all that concerned about gunning down Red Coats.

 

[ConCap]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Their “creator” not the Constitution.

 

[Yieu]

The right to life means you have a right to be alive and to not be killed or aggressed upon by another human or a group of humans.

This is a natural right which was granted by God.

This right was not granted by the Constitution, the Constitution merely recognizes that this right exists.

 

[ConCap]

The right to life means you have a right to be alive and to not be killed or aggressed upon by another human or a group of humans.

This is a natural right which was granted by God.

This right was not granted by the Constitution, the Constitution merely recognizes that this right exists.

Agree.
The left is trying to make it “Constitutional” and split the right.

 

[Odin]

The right to life means you have a right to be alive and to not be killed or aggressed upon by another human or a group of humans.

This is a natural right which was granted by God.

This right was not granted by the Constitution, the Constitution merely recognizes that this right exists.

When did God ever mention these rights? I assume you mean the God of the Bible, or else you wouldn't know God endowed upon us?

Couple points:
1.) No dictator has ever cared about "rights."
2.) No person wanting freedom would be put off if they realized that they didn't have a right to it.

 

[Yieu]

Well, my post was in disagreement with the original post.

 

[Yieu]

When did God ever mention these rights? I assume you mean the God of the Bible, or else you wouldn't know God endowed upon us?

I am Hindu, not Christian, if that is what you were asking.

But I believe that there is only one God, and that both Hindus and Christians worship Him.

God mentioned the right to life when He taught the principle of ahimsa, which is the non-aggression principle. This principle implies an inherent right to continue living by nature of one's very existence.

 

[ConCap]

I use God, because he is my creator, not to imply he is yours.

 

[Odin]

Oh third point: "Rights" are more often used to oppress people than to advance freedom. Just read the European declaration of human rights and you'll get an idea of what some people think 'rights' consist of. There's no more evidence that right to life, liberty, property exist than any other made up right such as healthcare, a job, even those rights that Hitler promised the German people to come to power.

No "right" is going to help you if you are put in Guantanamo or some prison unjustly, freedom is the correct word to use and it is a principle not a right.

 

[Odin]

I am Hindu, not Christian, if that is what you were asking.

But I believe that there is only one God, and that both Hindus and Christians worship Him.

God mentioned the right to life when He taught the principle of ahimsa, which is the non-aggression principle. This principle implies an inherent right to continue living by nature of one's very existence.

A principle is different than a right. If God gave us a right to life, then it is inexplicable that all humans die and that some people are born into a country with a dictator where the are given no chance to even live.

God commands that we treat people a certain way. We have the choice not to though. If God meant to endow us with rights it seems to me like he wouldn't give other people the ability to take them.

 

[Yieu]

I use God, because he is my creator, not to imply he is yours.

I guess I misunderstood the original post. It seemed like you were trying to argue against a right to remain alive (right to life) being granted by God.

 

[Yieu]

A principle is different than a right. If God gave us a right to life, then it is inexplicable that all humans die and that some people are born into a country with a dictator where the are given no chance to even live.

God commands that we treat people a certain way. We have the choice not to though. If God meant to endow us with rights it seems to me like he wouldn't give other people the ability to take them.

Just because you have rights does not mean someone else cannot violate those rights. Rights can be violated, but they remain your rights.

The right to life is not a right to live forever. It is a right to not be killed by one's fellow man or a group of men. That right can be violated, but it exists.

A principle is different from a right, but the purpose of the principle of ahimsa/non-aggression is to not harm others in order to respect their right to life.

 

[ConCap]

There's no more evidence that right to life, liberty, property exist than any other made up right such as healthcare, a job, even those rights that Hitler promised the German people to come to power.

Yes there is, if you live under the Constitution as written.

The Constitution of the United States was written as a rule of law.

 

[Odin]

Yes there is, if you live under the Constitution as written.

The Constitution of the United States was written as a rule of law.

But a legal right is different than a natural right, and the legal rights we have don't correspond to real freedom, and the government doesn't even care about violating these rights. Plus they continue to add rights like "healthcare" to the list which is actually oppressive.

 

[mczerone]

I don't get the rhetorical purpose of this post, let alone why it belongs in grassroots central.

Is there some positive course of action you propose grassroots take to make some point about the Constitution's proclamation of a "right to life" as against govt action, or are you just trying to straw-man some vague position of the opposition?

 

[Odin]

Just because you have rights does not mean someone else cannot violate those rights. Rights can be violated, but they remain your rights.

The right to life is not a right to live forever. It is a right to not be killed by one's fellow man or a group of men. That right can be violated, but it exists.

A principle is different from a right, but the purpose of the principle of ahimsa/non-aggression is to not harm others in order to respect their right to life.

Then what you're saying is these rights don't help me at all (anyone can violate them at their own will), so what is the point of them? Announcing these rights to a dictator that wants to kill you won't save your life. It just seems silly to me, plus you hand authoritarians the language that helps them. They now say you have a right to healthcare, a job, a house, and on and on. And the government will provide it to you.

Freedom is a basic idea. There is no "right" to it, it is just the principle we want to base society on. I'd say it is described pretty well by the 10 commandments. Those come pretty close to describing the ways in which the principle of freedom regulates your unlimited freedom to do whatever you want.

 

[Lishy]

Well since we don't know whether or not Christianity is the one, sole, correct religion, it would be hasty to put all our eggs in one basket with Christianity's belief in God as the definition to right of life.

Considering the founding fathers were Deist and Agnostic, I believe we should not over-analyze "the right to life" past the idea that we should not take someone else's life.