Seine Zeit in einem """Politik-Diskussions-Subforum""" zu verschwenden macht es auch nicht besser.^^

Letztlich läuft es immer auf das hier hinaus:

depends on the right and how you define duty i suppose, such as the right to privacy. that's not a duty, just inaction by any would be intruder.

and as to animals, many species have respected rights. primates are typically matrilineal and a male must court a female before she accepts him as mate, chimpanzee females have a right to their own reproductive system. and many of them have a sense of possession as well. rights arent exclusively human, only legal codes are. and even that might not be accurate, as we dont understand how primates and porpoises impose punishments for transgressions.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 22 2020 01:33pm

Dolphins are rapists btw
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2015/2/23/8089019/horrible-animals

i see you watched the new Chris Delia special.

Duty to respect your property. Duty to not interfere with your speech.

I think in this instance you're confusing a right with your ability to oppose your will on others. A right is nothing more than an expectation to be treated a certain way.

When I speak of rights and laws I am talking about positive laws and not natural laws like thermodynamics.

Mating rituals are different imo.

I will address what you say with the chimps: being a moral agent requires a certain level of cognitive ability, and once that cognitive ability is reached then moral law is known more or less. Immanual Kant would say that the moral law is objective and animals discover it through the evolution of the mind, that apes have it to some degrees including humans, and if other species develop minds sophisticated enough to create society and laws will already have a duty based moral code.

if mating rituals are different abortion isnt a right women should have, a privilege perhaps, but not a right. there's fundamentally do difference between a human woman's ability to control her pregnancy with abortion and a chimps right to deny males and therefore not get pregnant. the only differences are based in species, recreational sex in humans being more prevalent and technology.

anyhow, i mainly agree with what you're saying i think. and of course healthcare is a privilege, just like gun ownership or free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights





How many times will it take to disabuse you of this misrepresentation?

How can you believe in natural rights when they are abused all the time? Rights only matter if there is an enforcement mechanism behind them.

Those cases don't map onto each other, like at all.

Right to not become pregnant and right to terminate a pregnancy both arise from the right to bodily autonomy.



I'm gonna go on an only partially related tangent for a second

The "abortion should be illegal" side has a lot of hurdles to climb over, and in my opinion none of them have been convincingly passed. The chain goes something like A fetus is a person --> A fetus deserves rights --> A fetuses rights supercede the mother's right to autonomy --> This is a case that can be reasonably adjudicated by our courts/government --> The case should be adjudicated by our courts/government --> Upon adjudication it was found that abortion should be outlawed.

I'm not convinced a fetus is a person, or that it is deserving of rights, or that if it did have rights it would outweigh the mother's right to bodily autonomy, or that government could reasonably enforce a ban, or that courts are equipped to deal with infringement, and it has in actuality been found by the courts in Roe v Wade that prior to 26 weeks it shouldn't be outlawed.

Anyway, tangent over.

Sometimes having them abused by others is a reason to abdicate them?