On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:40:42 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <uf_1g.52018$7a.34976@pd7tw1no> wrote:

"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:33:54 -0700, "Dutch" <no@email.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id <124demiae6tnk55@news.supernews.com>
wrote:

I am not discussing validity. I do take the position that no rights
exist outside of those recognized and enforced by law.

So why do laws exist in the way they do? Something must have existed
prior
to laws coming into existence that prompted people to say, "There ought
to
be a law.." That "ought" is usually referred to as the "moral right"
that
precedes a legal right.

Perhaps by you, but certainly not by me. No so-called 'moral rights'
exist.

Then what do you call those ideals for which there "ought to be" laws, but
there aren't.

Wishful thinking?

What if abortion were declared illegal? Wouldn't it be correct to say that
ought to change?

I prefer 'should be'.

Couldn't it be expressed as "women have a moral right to
abortion"?

Not by me. I have not, do not , and will not use the word 'moral' in
any discussions except in the negative.

As in "Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do"."

Those moral rights *exist* inasmuch as they are
implicit in the evolving social network and structure.

*****, to use one of your favorite terms.

Empty assertion, your favorite form of statement.

My basic position is that if there is no enforcement mechanism, and no
repercussions for any violation, any discussion of whether or not a
'right' exists (whether a 'moral right' a 'natural right' or any other
kind) is a complete waste of time and a waste to which my contribution
will be minimal.

Which proves my point above. If you reject the concept of inherent
value
then value must be measured by lawmakers.

No, value is irrelevant. It is an entirely different subject and I
am
not discussing or considering the presence or absence of value in my
comment or my position.

You can't comment on anything without implying value. Your position on
choice is placing a value on a human right.

Not unless you look at everything through some 'value' filter. I do
not.

I don't believe you, everyone has "value filters". If you did not
believe
that choice was *right* you would not spend so much time arguing on
behalf
of it.

If you were not against it you would not spend so much time attacking
it.

So are you accepting what I said? Do you not have a "value filter" that
tells you that choice in abortion is the right way?

No.

I do not accept the concept of 'inherent value'. All value exists
only in context.

Inherent value doesn't imply an absence of context, everything exists in
a
context. Inherent value or rights means that within a given context
there
are rights that exist in principle regardless of any law being in place
to
enforce them. If the laws against child abuse were suddenly stricken
from
the books due to some constitutional parent's rights challenge, it would
still be correct to say that children have a (moral) right to be
protected,
even though their legal rights were stripped away.

Ignored.

Typical ignorance on your part. You have a case of terminal tunnel-vision.

I stay on the issue without extraneous and irrelevant side issue
distractions. That is a deliberate and planned effort.

And one I will not alter.

I do not and will not discuss any point in which a 'moral' point is
raised. I will simply ignore them. As I have told you previously.

According to you humans only have
a right to thier lives because the government says so.

No. I have never said humans have a right to life. I have said
that
humans in our society have certain protections from being killed
except under certain circumstances.

That's what a right to life means.

No it does not.

Yes it does. Nobody thinks that it means I can't be hit by a car or die
of
cancer, or be executed for a capital crime. It means I hold that right
against other moral actors.

Nuts. I can sit munching on a sandwich and watch you die of hunger.
So much for your 'right to live'.

I didn't say you couldn't, legally anyway, you're arguing with yourself.

A cow is protected from being beaten. Does that mean
a cow has a right not to be beaten?

Yes. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rights
"Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by
moral principle.'

So the cow can bring charges.

An agency like the SPCA usually does it.

That was not the question.

Does a cow have the right to bring
charges.

Yet I can eat that same cow.

The right the cow holds against humans is to not be abused, NOT to not
be
killed for food.

You need to understand the difference between a right and a
protection. Clearly you do not.

No, clearly YOU do not.

derives from
laws then that principle must apply across the board. If worth is
measured
by existing laws then women were worthless before they attained
emancipation.

They were as far as voting was concerned.

But were they *actually* worthless? Do women's voices have *real*
meaning,
or does it only depend on what lawmakers have dictated?

Since the question dealt directly with voting rights all else is
irrelevant.

Why didn't the legislators just say no? Wouldn't that have been
simpler?

The political atmosphere of the time did not allow this, any more than
it allowed Prohibition to be rejected.

That's very vague, what does "political atmosphere" mean?

The mood of the electorate and the political pressure brought by both
voters and other political interests to make a certain course of
action happen. Such as Prohibition and so forth.

That's exactly what I said. Political pressure comes in the form of
arguments, compelling arguments. What do think it is, death threats?

Political pressure comes about in the form of votes and money.

At that particular time it would have been politically dangerous not
to give women the right to vote.

Dangerous how?

Those who opposed it would have lost elections.

The reality is
that women, and men, put forth compelling arguments to the effect that
the
laws restricting women were *unjust* and therefore should be abandoned.
This
is the essence of what drives the evolution of morality, and changing
laws.

Compelling arguments never caused anything to happen. You evidently
don't know how the political structure actually operates. It is not
like a high school textbook.

I didn't say it was. This "political pressure" you refer to comes in the
form of political opponents, media, public pressure groups, individuals,
all
speaking out, making arguments that politicians can't ignore.

Politicians can ignore any and all arguments. They cannot ignore
votes and money, the only two things that count in politics. All
political influence and power is based on the ability to control
voting and control money.

Choice in abortion, Roe v Wade, followed a similar path.

Bear in mind the discussion here is over voting rights AND NOTHING
ELSE. In other words, can a woman vote or not?

Why do you stipulate that?

That was the origional point.

You're a very frustrating person to have a discussion with.

Then stop.

issues. I sometimes fail in this but i am constantly making the
effort and I will drop any such issue when I realize what I am doing.