'In this presidential election, there is only one option to uphold women's right to abortion, which is a fundamental human rights issue that has made America proud for more than two centuries.'

1/ So killing the unborn is now a fundamental human rights issue?
Says who, did you actually consult the unborn on this matter?
Did they hold a meeting, form a union and come to some consensus?

2/ I'm not sure I want to hear from Jewish people about dead babies.
I've already seen a few videos of IDF killing kids already today.

Protester asks Israeli weapons firms for 'baby killing technology’
http://youtu.be/Z-2GEQ6-xRo

The fearful have fled…is it that blood and guts has become so intolerable to modern powder puff man in the West, that now he must abandon all to terrorisms embrace to fulfil his need for a mothers security and comfort?

In North Africa right now, a Christian is slaughtered by a jihadist every two hours: and all we hear is weeping for Palestinian jihadists fitting the description of modern day Neanderthal head hunters.

All at the same time, Western man sits in his over comfortable, smug and secure over pampered and insulated zone of denial, debating the slaughter of his own unwanted children.

We are a lost cause!

I don't see you complaining about Christians being slaughtered in Lebanon you cuck.
http://x.com/LegitTargets/status/1847314196129566945

I don't see you complaining about the Jew Zelensky ransacking churches in Ukraine you cuck.
http://x.com/aussiecossack/status/1848062655975850338

I don't see you complaining about Mexico's Jewish President Claudia Sheinbaum, invoking prayer to pagan gods during inauguration.
(Mexico is 90% Christian)
http://x.com/DrLoupis/status/1842665161821438136

Let's face it you don't care about Christians
You're just a NAZI-Jew shill.

Here's some more dead kids piled up for you, thanks to Israel.
I'm sure you'll enjoy these ones Mr. One-Eyed-Fake-Christian.

http://x.com/Partisangirl/status/184777513800110914

'Love your enemies'
'Thou shall not kill'
'Love thy neighbour'
'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'

You best go back to bible study, schoolboy.

Are the Palestinians and other Islamists conducting abortions now Dan?
Or is it only westernised countries that do this?

Thanks for replying Rhian - I’m disappointed though in that I don’t think you really answer my “fair” questions!

I asked you what you think is the basis/justification for “rights”. Where do rights come from and what gives them their authority? It seems to me that there are only three possible answers to these questions.

It could be claimed that rights are things that just happen to have been thrown up by an evolving, mindless, materialist universe. It would seem to be a rather odd thing though to say that physical matter can generate rights, but even if it is claimed that is so, why should such rights have any authority? These rights would have unintentionally happened into being for no real purpose, so why should anyone care about them? Moreover, how could anyone know, and then prove to others, that they had genuinely discerned these rights?

A second alternative would be to claim that human beings, using their rational intelligence, have made up the notion of rights. In typical usage however, rights seem to have an elevated status above simply the opinions of people. You yourself wrote that you don’t think that rights are justified by consensus. What is it that gives rights their elevated status? And if they are not determined by consensus, how are they determined?

What you then go on to say seems to indicate that you think that rights are best established by the “messy processes of legislation and legal review”. So for you, are rights then just another term for laws? If so, then they seem to lose any special status of being above popular opinion. After all, laws can be changed and therefore rights can be changed too. A right would have no more authority than a law.

A third alternative would be to say that rights have been established by God who has intentionally created us. That would justify rights having an elevated status above merely being the opinions of human beings. You do not indicate any preference for that position.

So where do you stand?

On the question of "rights":

Rights are man-made concepts,
they are not present in nature,
they do not reflect any reality beyond,
so if/when/where people assign rights to someone or something,
then that thing has rights,
and if they don't then it does not.

No object deserves any rights, not even if it is made of organic compounds, not even if it behaves intelligently, not even if it screams when stung or exposed to extreme heat, cold, etc.: rights are typically assigned to objects not because they in themselves deserve so, but only because we respect their owner who dwells within them.

A reasonable analogy would be car-registration: the car seemingly receives a right to go on the road, but truly it is given in respect of its driver/owner (and their payment) - the car itself doesn't even care!

Going a step further, when rights are assigned to bodies, it should be as a way and in the spirit of showing respect to the image-of-God who adopted them and dwells within.

There is however a caveat: the respect must truly be there, otherwise it is only for show, and one cannot possibly force another to respect (that, in fact, would constitute disrespect of the other who is also made in the image of God).