3RU7AL

If you are a perfectly isolated society, then you can do whatever you can convince the group is best.

Rights are not about what one can do. There are laws against murder, but there are those who still murder because they "can." Rights are concepts which delineate a moral economy. You called it an atrocity for a reason. Can an atrocity reflect said moral economy by mere consensus?

Can an atrocity reflect said moral economy by mere consensus?

Because your statement about rights is all-inclusive, even atrocities would be subject to this consensus. Do you disagree?

I'm saying that the fetus is its own distinct living being, and platitudes against this  not only have little justification but are unnecessary. The mother's right over her womb is absolute.

The mother's right over her womb is absolute.

You know this is clearly an argument from authority... 

...because you are not citing any papers or study simply pushing the burden on me to prove your claims... 

...or if you are wrong then it would be supporting me. At that point of me actually getting this done you would've forgotten about the subject entirely or even discredit the thing I just did. Do you have a paper on this or are you going to carry on pushing the burden of proof to me?

Now if this doesn't support your claim/ an argument of authority why aren't you answering my question which is "What standard are you using to declare a thing having 100% human cells?"

Human rights are codified and enforced by human consensus.

So if 10 of my boys and I voted unanimously to assault a woman in our group, our consensus would dictate her "sovereign territory" as you put it?

What is the source of the raw material that they zygote utilizes?

It doesn't matter.

Who or what creates rights if not the "bestowers"? And if they can be bestowed, can they not be rescinded?

Yes, but a zygote has its own distinct human genome, where as a sperm cell shares its genome with its emitter. You can then argue that the sperm cell is merely an extension of its emitter, much like a finger, or an internal organ. The same cannot be said for the zygote.

What standard are you using to declare a thing having 100% human cells?

So a chopped arm is a human? 

What is human cells? 

What are you defining a human to be as? 

Only they know their inner thoughts and how they really feel about a rainy day.

The sperm is 100% human and 100% alive.

The egg is also 100% human and 100% alive.

How did you get this conclusion?

If the person truly feels and believes that a rainy day is a beautiful day, or that specific rainy day is the most beautiful day ever

Only citizens are protected by the law.

naw, you still have the right to remain silent, a right to an attorney etc etc  you have to fight, for your right, to ppaaarrrtttaaayyyy!

Life begins BEFORE conception.

I meant human life. When does it start?

Why ought we care about a choice a mother makes within her own private sovereign territory?

You are just dodging the question and instead returning one to me. You haven't stated the problem with my question so do you want to state the problem with my question or answer it? 

This is under the axiom we ought to care about a choice of a mother over a life right? 

doesn't negate the point that just because someone doesn't have a birth certificate doesn't mean they don't still have rights, that better for you now?

I believe the real question is, "at what point is it anyone else's (other than the mother's) business or concern?"

This is under the axiom we ought to care about a choice of a mother over a life right? 

Good, in the sense that, for the wolf, it survives; bad for the rabbit, it dies.

...you cannot call it good, just preference. Not only that, you can't establish an unchanging standard like you can with quantitative measures/values UNLESS God exists.

1) Opinion: "I believe it will rain tomorrow."

Fact: It rains tomorrow. 

Traditionally, citizenship (with its associated rights and legal protections) starts when a birth certificate is issued by the proper governing authority.

Rights, in your judgement then, are created when a government issues a birth certificate?

When do you think life should start?

I don't really want the law just what you would like the law to be. 

Where do you think life starts? 

Two threats have been initiated.

What does a taste, like, feeling, desire, pleasure, or preference have to do with what should or ought to be the case?

Both examples have a specific identity. They both mean a specific thing.

Goodness as a moral issue? As such, it corresponds to a specific value (a qualitative value), that which is right or true to the standard. If that standard is changing (not fixed) then goodness can mean two different things at the same time, depending on who holds the view.

I said, "thousands of years before the birth of Christ."

So, what is the inference you want me to glean? The people Christ came to were under a covenant with God that was initiated well over a thousand years before Jesus. The reference was for specific people (OT Israel) in how they should live before God, but the principles (The Ten Commandment) apply to all people. 

This is categorically incorrect.  (IFF) an opinion corresponds to the fact or truth in question (THEN) it is not an opinion (THEREFORE) it is instead simply a FACT.

If your belief corresponds to the fact, even though it is just an opinion and not known by you, your opinion is true to what is.

My inference has to do with the law of identity, although I did not state it specifically, in regards to logic.

Goodness has to have a fixed reference point to know what goodness is or else you cannot say something is better than something else.

Better in relation to what? Your subjective feelings? The feelings that you and those like-minded like? Subsequently, there must be a best to compare it with or else the standard is always in flux.  

Ok. Now imagine that there are thousands upon thousands of cups and only one coin. Also imagine that you can only pick one. Naturally you will only win as prize if you choose the cup with the coin under it but the carnival barker also informs you that if you do not find the coin you will be punished, worse if you don't play you can't find the coin so you will certainly be punished. 

Still with me? Ok here comes the real meat.

You pick the wrong cup (because of course you do there's thousands of friggin cups) and you will be punished. As they come to administer the punishment the following conversation takes place. (If you refuse to play the game this conversation may still be assumed to have happened).

"Facts" are what is the case. "Opinions" are beliefs that may or may not correspond to the facts. "Opinion" is what someone believes is the case and it is only true if it conforms to what is the case. 

Matters of FACT are (EITHER) verifiably true (OR) verifiably false (OR) beyond our epistemological limits.

How can something be a fact unless it is true; unless it is the case?

Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.

***

Definition of fact

1a: something that has actual existence

b: an actual occurrence

2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY

Matters of OPINION are (NEITHER) true (NOR) false.

Opinions can be true or false depending on how they correspond to the fact or truth in question. Matters of opinion are either true or they are false for they cannot be both true and false at the same time regarding the same matter.

Imagine for a minute, that you are living on a small island thousands of years before the birth of Christ.

You have a dispute with your neighbor.  Your neighbor borrowed your horse and it was seriously injured (accidentally) under their care.  You try and talk it out, but you are unable to resolve your dispute.  You can't consult your holy scriptures because the written word hasn't been invented yet.  So you try and convince your other neighbors to take your side and talk some sense into the person who borrowed your horse.  When that doesn't work, you go to the village elders and plead your case.

I'm not sure how "no fixed reference point" in any way impedes this perfectly logical and intuitive process.

Your dispute with your neighbor is a matter of OPINION.

However, once God reveals,

there is a self-disclosure regarding the situation. That self-disclosure comes from loving your neighbour and doing what is right and best for your neighbour per God's written instructions.

Without knowing the law there is still a heart-knowledge of right and wrong.

When two reference points that contradict each other both say they are the measure that something should be done by, logically one is not true since they contradict.

Not necessarily.

How so?

Good = Eat your neighbour

Good = Do not eat your neighbour

If one of these two propositions is true the other cannot be true for they both say contrary things regarding the same thing - Good, and what that means. Sometimes, depending on the two propositions, it is possible that both are wrong, but both cannot be right when they state opposites.

Dog = dog.

Dog = cat. 

One of these two statements is wrong. Both cannot be right.

It either IS the case or it is NOT the case. It cannot both be the case and not the case at the same time. 

If you were going somewhere with this please go right ahead.

I mean unless you know where the coin is before you pick you will by necessity be making your decision arbitrarily.

I do not believe in the existence of the Voltron with the forty cars and trucks, that's clearly just dumb. But if you are doubting the five lion version, I'm prepared to take some drastic, violent steps to prove that he's real, and you better swear allegiance to him, or you will NEVER get to heaven and meet the Thundercats. Instead you end up in hell, where you meet the Silverhawks.

Person (b) says, I don't like any of those legs because they look strange (ad hominem).

When two reference points that contradict each other both say they are the measure that something should be done by, logically one is not true since they contradict.

Well, the question becomes who is actually right is there is no ultimate reference point? Is there such a thing without an ultimate, objective, absolute reference-point/measure?