MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
Member is Online
|
Post by MDDad on Mar 31, 2019 9:48:35 GMT -8
As I said earlier, all "rights" are subjective. The right to healthcare is no more or less a right than the right to be protected by a nation's military, or by a city's police force, or the "right to an attorney". With all due respect to our founding fathers, in a nation that has sadly relegated God to a side pew, there are no rights that are inalienable, and we possess only those rights granted (or protected) by legislation. All of them are to a large degree arbitrary and can be temporary. Everything else is just personal opinion. That is patently incorrect. Negative rights, as outlined in the Constitution, do not require any effort for one to respect of another. They are inalienable because they do not require action by any person or government for them to occur and they are the foundations of freedom. Government is only formed to secure these rights and prevent a person or entity from intruding upon them. Government is not formed to create or give these rights. Positive rights are typically something someone gets as part of a deal or agreement. You give LA Fitness x amount of dollars a month & you then have the right to go into their facilities and look at women in yoga pants. You gave something up for that right, it isn't something that we all have upon birth. It requires others to give or do things (i.e., open their doors 7 days a week) so that you can enjoy the fruits of that right. Those rights can be taken away when one or both parties void the agreement, either voluntarily or by breaking some provision (i.e., you decide to go all Joe Biden and start touching the Yoga pants instead of just looking). To address your example, we do not have a right to be protected by the military or police. If we are overrun by the Canadians next year, we can't sue the American government for failing to protect us. There never was a right to military protection. The military and police departments are nothing more than tools that we have authorized governing forces to use in order to secure our inalienable rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness). Ultimately, we are responsible for securing our inalienable rights, hence the reason for the first & second amendments. The Bill of Rights are positive rights that were enacted as a way to secure our inalienable rights and military or police forces are tools to do the same. I believe our differences on this subject are shown when you state that we possess only those rights granted (or protected) by legislation. Granted versus protected are two different concepts completely. To say that rights are only granted requires the perception that societies are to be ruled from the top down, that people are subjects of those who govern. To say rights are protected is the inverse, making the case that people decide who governs and that the role of the governing bodies is to protect, not provide. If the right to life is not an inalienable right, if it is just arbitrary and can be temporary as you say, then why does every society consider murder to be a crime? Even those who are pro choice don't argue that it is okay to kill a baby, they argue that what is being killed is not a human yet. To look at the taking of a life of an innocent human (murder) and to say it is just an arbitrary right requires a sociopathic brain. RSM, it took me a while to appreciate what you see as the differences between negative and positive rights. Having done that, I disagree with you. The three rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) are "unalienable" only because they are "endowed by their Creator", per the founding fathers. For those who do not believe in a God, or for a secular nation, the basis for those rights being inalienable ceases to exist. As Dennis Prager said many years ago, all morality and concepts of good and evil are founded in religion. In the absence of a supreme deity, morality, good and evil become social contracts open to negotiation and revision. I agree with him. Even the right to life, as fundamental a "negative" right as one might imagine, is not absolute, and is open to ideological manipulation. Conservatives argue that it does not apply to those sentenced to death after a capital crime, while liberals insist that it does not apply to unborn children. All rights in a secular nation are social constructs reached by a consensus or a majority of its citizens. And finally, whether either of us causes the other to budge even an inch in their beliefs, I marvel at the fact that we can have a discussion of disagreements on this forum that would have been derailed with trivial and partisan bullshit on TOB long ago. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 31, 2019 12:02:00 GMT -8
...And finally, whether either of us causes the other to budge even an inch in their beliefs, I marvel at the fact that we can have a discussion of disagreements on this forum that would have been derailed with trivial and partisan bullshit on TOB long ago. That last portion makes me smile, because I habitually expect personal attack responses during discussions based on previous experiences at other sites. It is refreshing to not be told that I am an idiot who gets all his information from Faux News or some other trope just because I have a differing opinion and provide a case for it passionately. The thing about an inalienable right is that it doesn't require belief in it for it to exist. Flat Earthers can say that the idea of a global earth hurtling through space is a hoax, but that doesn't stop the earth from being round or circling the sun. One does not need to believe in inalienable rights or even a Creator in order for those rights to exist and be part of their consciousness. As an example, it is very rare to find an avowed atheist who truly believes that he should be allowed to murder another, that such an act is no different than walking down the street or sneezing. That atheist does not believe in a creator, yet inside his rational consciousness is the knowledge that people have a right to life. Now their are ideological instances that you point out where people may appear to show a belief that there is not a right to life. Note that these arguments at no time try to say that people do not have a right to life. Rather, both are attempting to say there are instances where such a right does not apply. The hanging judge does not dispute the right to life, he is just arguing that one forfeits that right when you don't respect it by murdering another human being. The abortionist does not dispute the right to life, he is just arguing that a fetus is not a human being. Both make no case that the right to life is not an inalienable right, they are just looking for loopholes. The inalienable right exists whether or not these loopholes are valid. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
Member is Online
|
Post by MDDad on Mar 31, 2019 12:09:11 GMT -8
Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but an inalienable right (e.g. to life) that has any number of loopholes, instances or special cases when it is not applicable at the whim of the law or another's ideology, sounds very "alienable" to me.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Mar 31, 2019 22:18:01 GMT -8
To be clear, I'm not saying the inalienable right has loopholes, rather that people will look for loopholes as justification of their ideology.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
Member is Online
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 1, 2019 7:59:28 GMT -8
Is that the same as saying, "To be clear, I'm not saying the impenetrable vault has an open side door, rather that robbers will look for that side door as a means of robbing it"?
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 1, 2019 12:56:36 GMT -8
Close, you have the second part incorrect. My version of that would be "I'm not saying the impenetrable vault has an open side door, rather that robbers will look for an open side door as a way to rob it". Just because the robber looks for an open side door doesn't mean it exists. Your version, using "that side door", implies that the open side door exists and therefore the vault is not impenetrable.
Killing a person or aborting a fetus does not mean the right to life is inalienable. Ones life is not inalienable, that can be taken away by another individual, the state or a bolt of lightning. The right is what is inalienable, the right can not be taken from you just because someone kills you or declares that you have no right to live. That right and the knowledge that it exists, is contained in all of our consciousness from the day we are born. From that starting point, we then declare that governments purpose is to secure those rights.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
Member is Online
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 1, 2019 14:59:17 GMT -8
A right with as many side doors as "life" seems to have doesn't seem like much of a right at all.
"That right and the knowledge that it exists is contained in all of our consciousness from the day we are born."
I couldn't disagree more. On our first day, we have no knowledge of any rights whatsoever.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 1, 2019 16:23:43 GMT -8
Huh? I wrote that there are no side doors, no matter how often people try to make it seem there are. How do make believe side doors make an impenetrable thing penetrable??
So you agree with John Locke, that we are born as a Tabula Rasa? If my memory of 12 years of parochial schooling serve me well, I recall that Catholicism takes a different view, disagreeing with Locke. Have I been away from the Catholic church so long that I missed this theological change or is this just another example of how Mater Dei changes Catholicism to fit their agenda?
(the last sentence was written with tongue planted firmly in cheek)
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jul 10, 2020 5:00:16 GMT -8
Obamacare came, once again, before SCOTUS last week in which they decided, on a 7-2 vote, that not only are religious institutions exempt from providing contraceptives, but so are organizations that have religious objections to doing so (which I thought they’d already decided)...
in her dissent, Justice Ginsberg noted, “...this will mean 70,000-120,000 women will be forced to buy their own contraceptives.”
<scratching head>
yeah? So what?
🤷🏻♂️
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
Member is Online
|
Post by MDDad on Jul 10, 2020 6:21:02 GMT -8
Justice Ginsberg noted, “...this will mean 70,000-120,000 women will be forced to buy their own contraceptives.” First, health insurance is intended to protect people from the costs of disease or injury, not to finance their sex lives. And second, Ginsberg is wrong because: (a) Those 70,000 to 120,000 women can make the decision to abstain from sex, or (b) Their men can buy their own contraceptives. They're pretty damn cheap. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jul 10, 2020 6:54:59 GMT -8
Justice Ginsberg noted, “...this will mean 70,000-120,000 women will be forced to buy their own contraceptives.” First, health insurance is intended to protect people from the costs of disease or injury, not to finance their sex lives. And second, Ginsberg is wrong because: (a) Those 70,000 to 120,000 women can make the decision to abstain from sex, or (b) Their men can buy their own contraceptives. They're pretty damn cheap. Don't condoms protect a person from disease? Who said anything about financing someone's sex life? (a) I guess we shouldn't pay for any health care that results from someone's choice...like a broken leg from skiing? (b) So you went from they shouldn't pay because it's a choice to they shouldn't pay because the client can buy them themselves, they're so cheap. Neither reason is very convincing. IMO, the insurance should cover contraceptives, counseling for sex addiction, therapy for kleptomania, and any other medical need the client may desire without any knowledge or consent of the employer...it's none of their freaking business what the client does with their health insurance. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,816
Member is Online
|
Post by MDDad on Jul 10, 2020 8:06:47 GMT -8
IMO, the insurance should cover contraceptives, counseling for sex addiction, therapy for kleptomania, and any other medical need the client may desire without any knowledge or consent of the employer...it's none of their freaking business what the client does with their health insurance. Of course that's your opinion. I would have expected nothing else. And a contraceptive is not a "medical need". Yes, breaking a leg while skiing is a medical need and should be covered as a physical injury, although some plans have historically excluded some dangerous activities from coverage. However, health insurance should not be required to prevent the injury by putting the skier in an inflatable plastic bubble before he starts down the slopes. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jul 10, 2020 13:07:25 GMT -8
IMO, the insurance should cover contraceptives, counseling for sex addiction, therapy for kleptomania, and any other medical need the client may desire without any knowledge or consent of the employer...it's none of their freaking business what the client does with their health insurance. Of course that's your opinion. I would have expected nothing else. And a contraceptive is not a "medical need". Yes, breaking a leg while skiing is a medical need and should be covered as a physical injury, although some plans have historically excluded some dangerous activities from coverage. However, health insurance should not be required to prevent the injury by putting the skier in an inflatable plastic bubble before he starts down the slopes. I'm ecstatic that you're ok with me stating my opinions and aren't surprised that's what I did.... Contraceptives are prescribed by physicians, yes? To make my opinion simple enough for you...it's no business of the employer what prescriptions are written for their employees. No idea what you're going on about with the bubbles. |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Jul 10, 2020 15:03:34 GMT -8
It seems obvious to me that the insurance companies charge the employer an amount based on how much coverage is offered in any particular plan. So it seems logical that if contraceptives are added to a plan, then the insurance company will pass that cost on to the employer by charging more for the plan that includes that coverage.
So it IS the employer's business.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jul 10, 2020 16:24:57 GMT -8
Justice Ginsberg noted, “...this will mean 70,000-120,000 women will be forced to buy their own contraceptives.” First, health insurance is intended to protect people from the costs of disease or injury, not to finance their sex lives. And second, Ginsberg is wrong because: (a) Those 70,000 to 120,000 women can make the decision to abstain from sex, or (b) Their men can buy their own contraceptives. They're pretty damn cheap. That part right there is, for me, THE only acceptable definition of “choice.” Which, I suppose, makes me “pro-choice.” |
|
