Religion v Child safety

[Zoom!Zoom!]

In the wild, one animal might kill another animal for something that it wants (a mate, food, etc.). This is a natural thing to do. It also demonstrates that you are an animal and have no rights of your own - so we can lock you in a cage, or kill you. Same goes for abandoning (in any number of ways) your children. Animals in nature might do it, but it demonstrates that you are an animal and have no rights of your own - so we can lock you in a cage, or... if your crime was bad enough, kill you.

Interesting since the idea of man more than an animal is based on religious beliefs. So actually it ones religious belief over another.
There is no law of nature that requires blood transfusions. In fact survive of the fittest would suggest let the child die to make room for a more fit child.
P.S the title could have read "religion vs nature" instead

 

[Danoff]

Interesting since the idea of man more than an animal is based on religious beliefs. So actually it ones religious belief over another.
There is no law of nature that requires blood transfusions. In fact survive of the fittest would suggest let the child die to make room for a more fit child.

Yea, the law of nature violates human rights. So does religion. Rights are based on logic, not religion.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Yea, the law of nature violates human rights. So does religion. Rights are based on logic, not religion.

Logic also points to survival of the fittest. Human rights themselves are base on religion. In nature you only have the right to survive or die. With the same logic we claim an unborn baby doesn't have rights so can be chopped up into small pieces.

 

[Pupik]

With the same logic we claim an unborn baby doesn't have rights so can be chopped up into small pieces.

That's for another thread. The original post was concerning fetuses which graduated to receive their birth certificates, so we'll keep this thread going with the same idea.

 

[Danoff]

Logic also points to survival of the fittest. Human rights themselves are base on religion.

Wrong on both counts. Survival of the fittest values fitness above all other attributes - an arbitrary distinction. Human rights were invented because survival of the fittest is not based on logic. The rights in religion were invented/derived (not ordained) because our brains rejected survival of the fittest (for good reason).

 

[Keef]

Logic also points to survival of the fittest. Human rights themselves are base on religion. In nature you only have the right to survive or die. With the same logic we claim an unborn baby doesn't have rights so can be chopped up into small pieces.

Survival of the fittest isn't necessarily logical, but it is natural.

Human rights are not based on religion. There are numerous aspects of all religions which contradict the natural human rights of life, liberty, and property.

Logical concepts exist no matter if anyone is smart enough to recognize them - we are, and therefore we understand how they apply to us. Most animals aren't smart enough to understand them and therefore they do not respect them.

I don't know about you, but I don't believe a fetus can be discarded on a whim. It's the same as the parent-child situation. The parents have decided to develop and raise their child, therefore they've taken on the responsibility of protecting the child's natural rights because he is unable to do so himself. The child is human and will eventually be able to understand and respect his own rights and those of others.

Danoff, I wouldn't say human rights were invented because they weren't. They were realized.

EDIT: This article might be a good example that pertains to the discussion.

A father caught a man sexually assaulting his 4-year old daughter. The father beat the man to death. A 4-year old is unable to full understand their rights as a human, much less defend them, and until they can it is the responsibility of the parent to do so. The Sheriff acknowledged the father's right to defend his daughter.

It's also worth it to note how American law expands on this situation. Basic law is based on morality - the protection of life, liberty, and property - and our system of law reflects that. The daughter aside, a man's life was lost in this conflict and therefore a decision by a grand jury will decide whether or not the father's actions were moral or if he should be punished for infringing the man's right to life. The beauty of our system is that nobody can walk around spewing their flavor or morality whether it's correct or not. They all have to go through a system that helps ensure all situations are scrutinized fairly. Beyond morality itself, logic dictates the existence of a justice system with which to enforce moral principles fairly.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Even within the US, it's pretty clear how differently each state chooses to interpret those rights. Rights are not universal because they're different depending on the philosopher or individual who realizes them. They're different based on cultures, government, and upbringing. It's very much a belief system, otherwise rights would be universally accepted and acknowledged.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Yea, the law of nature violates human rights. So does religion. Rights are based on logic, not religion.

Then why are you calling them natural rights if, naturally, they don't exist?

 

[PAPPACLART]

The 4 year old girl did not get to choose what Religion she believes in. That is child abuse on its own.

A belief is about choice, but pretty much all religions/religious people mostly raise their children according to their beliefs, some send their children to religious schools, some boys get the snip etc, what happened to belief, poor children never get a chance to believe in what they want to believe in.

Both parents IMO opinion need their heads banged together, perhaps to knock some sense into them but anybody that takes a belief that seriously/literally is insane and there is no help for them. The Child should be taken away form them before they do more harm.

 

[Keef]

Then why are you calling them natural rights if, naturally, they don't exist?

Why is Fermium on the periodic table if, naturally, it doesn't exist?

They are natural and we've tried to explain that to you numerous times. Morality exists as mathematics does. It is functional and objective and exists in space and time whether or not any beings are intelligent enough to understand them. We did not invent human rights as we did not invent mathematics. They already existed and we eventually discovered these logical relationships.

I don't know why Danoff referred to any "law" of nature. As far as I know, natural selection is a component of evolutionary theory which is not scientific law. Humans actually have the ability to defy natural selection and evolutionary theory and we do it regularly with modern medicine.

As far as we can tell, all humans have the ability to understand the concepts of life, liberty, and property. Most of them don't care enough to be bothered, but they can.

 

[ShobThaBob]

You can show me mathematics. I can measure mathematics. You cannot show me morality as it differs from person to person and culture to culture based on what the individuals value. The implication that everyone values the same thing and that there is only one version of morality is incredibly small minded and ignorant of the world as a whole.

 

[Danoff]

Even within the US, it's pretty clear how differently each state chooses to interpret those rights. Rights are not universal because they're different depending on the philosopher or individual who realizes them. They're different based on cultures, government, and upbringing. It's very much a belief system, otherwise rights would be universally accepted and acknowledged.

The world is not round, otherwise it would be universally accepted and acknowledged that the world is round.

Then why are you calling them natural rights if, naturally, they don't exist?

I don't call them natural rights - you do. They exist in logic.

I don't know why Danoff referred to any "law" of nature.

I was using the language of the post I quoted.

Danoff, I wouldn't say human rights were invented because they weren't. They were realized.

I said "invented/derived" because I was talking about religion and rights in the same sentence. The "invented" was aimed at religion. The "derived" was aimed at rights.

You can show me mathematics. I can measure mathematics. You cannot show me morality as it differs from person to person and culture to culture based on what the individuals value.

You're looking for people practicing not just some of the morality derived from logic, but ONLY the morality derived from logic. This would be like looking for native tribes using calculus when calculus had barely been discovered.

The US is one of the closest nations that exists to practicing only the morality derivable from logic - but it's not particularly close. The US violates rights all the time. Drug laws, prostitution laws, suicide laws, unequal treatment under the law (especially but not limited to taxation), all regulatory agencies (which is probably most of the government), etc. etc.

Generally speaking you can find key elements of human rights in almost every developed nation on the planet. Murder, theft, property, freedom of contract, etc. are all rights derivable from logic and almost uniformly found in developed nations. These rights do not exist unabridged, and they exist alongside other "rights" which are not rights at all. But as a species we have discovered some of the most important elements of human rights.

...including child abuse.

Freedom of religion is a right. Just like having the freedom to starve yourself or shoot yourself or sell yourself. These freedoms cannot be used to infringe your child's rights. You do not have the right to starve your chid or shoot your child or sell your child. And you do not have the right to use your practice of your religion to sell, shoot, starve, or otherwise harm your child.

The implication that everyone values the same thing and that there is only one version of morality is incredibly small minded and ignorant of the world as a whole.

How do you interpret this:

Agreement is meaningless. The day everyone agrees on what is moral, morality is meaningless because everyone would understand that doing wrong is wrong.

To mean "everyone values the same thing"?

 

[ShobThaBob]

So what you're describing is a very strict set of moral codes. What are they? If this morality if yours is derived from logic, then there must never be any gray areas with what you believe to be right and wrong, correct? Also, I hate to say it, but in certain states, you do have the protected right to let your child die from illness if you can claim religious reasons for doing so.

Also, I responded that way because I don't believe morality is derived from logic. Very realistically, morality is derived from values.

 

[Keef]

It seems to me this discussion should be taken to the Human Rights thread, either for review or a new (recycled) discussion. You argument seems like you don't understand what logic, morality, and rights actually are and where they come from. You have to get that base knowledge straightened out before we can discuss how religion or law might factor into such things.

 

[niky]

Is there any particular reason you're ignoring the parts of this thread which specifically outline this as a states issue and not a federal issue? Again, as pointed out by Sail, there are states which make specific provisions for this type of action and make it legally protected. There's nothing to remember, in some states, those rights do not end and are extended as long as that child does not have the legal right to grant consent for medical procedures.

Also, the idea of universal rights is obviously a belief system. Some people believe in different universal rights than others. No belief system is more correct or wrong than others. There's nothing complicated about that.

That is the fault of state law for not being amended, and has nothing at all to do with human rights, but legal priveleges granted to people. Again... you're confusing human rights with priveleges granted by law... faulty law, at that, which is why a number of states have amended them. I've already mentioned that factor before Sail brought it up.

Again: Not a right. Simply a duty and a privelege being confused with one. Which is why states are so ready to amend the laws once cases like this come up.

Even within the US, it's pretty clear how differently each state chooses to interpret those rights. Rights are not universal because they're different depending on the philosopher or individual who realizes them. They're different based on cultures, government, and upbringing. It's very much a belief system, otherwise rights would be universally accepted and acknowledged.

The UN Bill of Rights and the US Bill of Rights are written to be as universal as possible, and thus are the closest we have to a definition of what human rights are. If you base your concept of rights on culture, then they will be flawed. Cultures violate rights all the time. A child has the right to choose their own religion free of indoctrination. A child has the right not to have their foreskin arbitrarily chopped off before they're old enough to decide they want to go through life kosher. A child has the right not to go through a painful initiation practice wherein they carve deep ruts into his or her skin to form permanent scars.