With regards to abortion, the argument breaks down that women should unilaterally have right to kill their unborn children beforehand because, as natural law rests on the human condition, the child would still be born if there is no physical disability endangering it, and therefore, it is very difficult to argue that the mother has the right to total freedom of choice.

we are still arguing about who can own muskets to repress slave rebellions. — ernestm

Except we're not.

Therefore, once a fetus reaches the age of 21 weeks and 5 days, at which point it can live independent of the mother, it must be accorded natural rights. — ernestm

Natural rights theory doesn't mandate defining personhood at viability. Here you just adopt the Roe v. Wade reasoning. A fetus at the age cited has only about a 20% chance of survival by the way. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability&ved=0ahUKEwiuyOy8lZLTAhVFYiYKHWq0Ao4QFggcMAE&usg=AFQjCNHKM7UyjCNU3l1bMRAZ7CEc3ERzTw&sig2=XVx2DO16vVxU_ddy6YdK9Q

In accordance with the laws of nature and God, the child is still accorded natural rights. In accordance with the theory of natural law for a peaceful society, it cannot ever be the choice of a human being as to who should die. Once that line is crossed, the Lockean state of war is automatically invoked. That is the definition of it, that is the theory, and there's no amount of constitutional debate that makes any difference to it.

In accordance with the laws of nature and God, the child is still accorded natural rights. — ernestm

This begs the question entirely and it is unresponsive to the entirety of this discussion. The question is "what is a child"? You have argued a fetus is a child when it is viable, which is simply an adoption of the Roe v. Wade analysis. The bottom line, which I've argued all along, is that natural law does not define personhood. It simply affords certain rights to people, whoever they may be. For that reason, you cannot assert that natural law answers the question of when abortion is acceptable or not, except to say that it's not acceptable when the fetus is a person, but you have no idea what a person is. That is, natural law is not helpful in figuring out when to abort or not.

In accordance with the theory of natural law for a peaceful society, it cannot ever be the choice of a human being as to who should die. — ernestm

And yet this isn't true either. You may be personally opposed to the death penalty, but this simply does not follow from a natural right analysis. We have all sorts of natural rights aside from the right to live, including the right to liberty. Surely you're not suggesting that no person can every have their liberty restrained, as in being imprisoned, for a crime they've committed. The point being that rights can be denied after due process of law, including the right to live and the right to be free. That is, you can have all sorts of rights, but they can be denied. If you don't accept that, then you'll have to explain how you expect to restrain people who violate the rights of others.

That is the definition of it, that is the theory, and there's no amount of constitutional debate that makes any difference to it. — ernestm

Your shying away from Constitutional analysis isn't based on the fact that natural law trumps the Constitution, but it's based upon your woefully limited knowledge of the Constitution and prior Supreme Court rulings. That is, you don't want to argue the Constitution because you accept your inability to respond to the Supreme Court citations you'll receive when you offer a misinterpretation. At any rate, you need to explain why you dispense with Constitutional theory yet you adopt the Roe v. Wade viability analysis and try to tie it in to natural law, despite the fact that the Court never said that viability was chosen as the abortion criterion because it was faithful to natural law concepts.

Again, I really have no interest in the constitutional argument. The basis of natural rights, which you first miscomprehend, is in nature, and the Jeffersonian formulation is based on Locke's theory, not from Treatise of Government, as also commonly misunderstood, but rather his chapter ON POWER in his Essay on Human Understanding. The following discussion assumes at least some prior familiarity with natural law as defined by Cicero; the Aquinas theory of promulgation; Grotius' idea of positive law; the social contract as defined by Hobbes, and Hume's fork.

Natural law itself does not derive from some abstraction, but rather as a necessary consequence of the human condition, as Cicero first pointed out; and which was first implemented as a system of promulgation into human law by Justinian. But those ideas were unfortunately lost during the dark ages, primarily due to Augustinian objections. So they were reformulated much later, during the early states of Western empirical thought, albeit in much more detail, by Locke as follows.

All are Created Equal

First, Locke argued, each individual is endowed by the power of WILL, to choose one action over another; by which our souls are formed, which in divine judgment may know joy or suffering, depending on how our choices affect the lives of others. For that reason, the premise of natural law is All are Created Equal in the Eyes of God. All must be equal in accordance with the principle of inalienability-- making any exception destroys the peaceful society which natural law strives to create, because it violates the universality of the social contract, and therefore causes the societal conflict that Locke called 'a state of war.' Including God in the premise is necessary to the formulation of the United States social contract for two reasons:

• The premise provides a value system, to pass the test of Hume's Guillotine. Without this theistic assertion, the proposition cannot state that which people ought to be able to do.
• Our desire to please God is actually necessary for the third natural right to work at all.

Locke's own perspective, common to the era of his life, is that it's so obvious we should desire to please God, it requires no further explanation:

"God, who knows our frailty, pities our weakness, and requires of us no more than we are able to do, and sees what was and what was not in our power, will judge as a kind and merciful father."
- On Power (Essay on Human Understanding, 2:21:43, John Locke, 1689).

The point of Locke’s premise is that all are equal IN THE EYES OF GOD, because God is only concerned with how we respond to our situation and thus are judged by God. Inequalities of property or family privilege are really of no importance in that premise. If Jefferson had written "all men have equal rights," one would know it is referring to human justice. But the phrase "all men are CREATED equal" refers to our equal status in the eye of the Creator, and is therefore a moral or ethical value, rather than a legal right, no matter how often it is interpreted otherwise.

For this reason, Jefferson originally stated that the truth is sacred and undeniable as a statement of faith. Franklin changed it to self-evident, to allow for people to accept the empirically derived conclusions. However, it it is clear that these conclusions are not self evident, as France instead formulated the natural rights as liberty, fraternity and equality--also believing that to be self evident. However, the French formulation was not derived empirically, hence it did not become the basis of a promulgation to human law, but simply devolved into a maxim. On the other hand, Locke's formulation for the rights themselves is based on the human condition, improving on Hobbes' negative view (leading to an authoritarian system of punishment) by postulating a benign democracy based on positive law, starting as follows.

Right to Life

Locke starts this thread of thought by considering how we would exist if there were no more than the power of free will. Locke's observes that this power of will, endowed to all, is without purpose in and of itself. He deduces we would remain unmoving, as rocks and stones, seeking neither change nor progress nor civilization. So God in his infinite wisdom gave us, through the Laws of Nature,hunger and thirst. For, Locke observes, as each day these needs must be satisfied, these biological needs create the appetite from which all other human happiness flows.

"This is the spring of action. When a man is perfectly content with the state he is in- which is when he is perfectly without any uneasiness- what industry, what action, what will is there left, but to continue in it? Of this every man's observation will satisfy him. And thus we see our all-wise Maker, suitably to our constitution and frame, and knowing what it is that determines the will, has put into man the uneasiness of hunger and thirst, and other natural desires, that return at their seasons, to move and determine their wills, for the preservation of themselves, and the continuation of their species."
- On Power (Essay on Human Understanding, 2:21:34, John Locke, 1689).

Therefore Life is the Primary Natural Right, which is a right to our simplest biological requirements—Our needs for water, food, sanitation, health, shelter, and to have our own families. Due to the great increase in understanding of our biological condition, this fundamental right is well understood. But the other rights, like the premise and the social contract itself, are most definitely misconceived in the modern world; and indeed, even the right to life as a primarily necessity to avoid a Lockean state of war is overlooked, leading the common modern misconceptions about rights to abortion, the acceptability of capital punishment, and the right to kill in self defense. None of those are acceptable within the Jeffersonian formulation, because they deny the inalienability of the social contract.

Right to Liberty

Locke has observed, because of hunger and thirst, there is a perpetual Uneasiness of the Soul, whence springs Desire. But to each person, desire is different, for whatever reason of nature or nurture it may be, it does not matter. Each person's unique desire cannot be defined or predicted by any other person, but is only known to each of us ourselves individually. Therefore we require Liberty to choose the satisfaction of our desires for ourselves. And that is the main foundation of the Jeffersonian social contract. Within this contract, each person may seek more or less, through effort of work, to obtain as much, or as little, or in whatever way each person finds best, fulfillment of desire; and to whatever each may desire, no other can say. Hence from necessity of hunger and thirst, Laws must grant liberty to choose how the soul, in its uneasiness, is fulfilled in different ways for each one separately. Thus Liberty is a Necessary Secondary Right.

"Now, let one man place his satisfaction in sensual pleasures, another in the delight of knowledge: though each of them cannot but confess, there is great pleasure in what the other pursues; yet, neither of them making the other's delight a part of his happiness, their desires are not moved, but each is satisfied without what the other enjoys; and so his will is not determined to the pursuit of it. But yet, as soon as the studious man's hunger and thirst make him uneasy, he, whose will was never determined to any pursuit of good cheer, poignant sauces, delicious wine, by the pleasant taste he has found in them, is, by the uneasiness of hunger and thirst, presently determined to eating and drinking, though possibly with great indifferency, what wholesome food comes in his way."
- On Power (Essay on Human Understanding, 2:21:44, John Locke, 1689).

Note how this definition of liberty is different than the naïve view. The liberties to which natural rights entitle us are those which enable us to have choice in that which we acquire and desire. It is not a blanket statement as to all that which we may do. For example, if you are on someone else's property, they can restrict your freedom, and not contravene your rights. As a trivial example, a supermarket can require you to wear a shirt while you are inside it—as long as it does not contravene the third natural right.
Note also that this view of liberty permits individuals to believe in the religion of their choice, even though the rights which individuals receive are based on a theistic premise. Jefferson found it necessary to explain this to some baptists, which he did as follows.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
, - Letter to the Danbury Baptists Thomas Jefferson(Monticello, 1802)

The exist4e3nce of God as a premise in USA's social contract has sadly become increasingly objectionable, or rather unfashionable. More recent attempts to reformulate the Jeffersonian social contract have therefore attempted to remove the precondition, which I refer to briefly at the end of this already long post.

Right to Pursue Happiness

Liberty is not of the same order of importance as the natural right to life, but still a natural right whence pleasure results, in the course of each person seeking to fulfill their own desires. The satisfaction of hunger and thirst creates Pleasure—a simple happiness of the first order. But for true happiness, we cannot consider our own pleasure alone, but also the needs and desires for others. Locke's argument is that happiness is illusory if we do not account for others in the actions of our own will, by Acting for the Greater Good. Because of the needs of others, we sometimes need to suspend our own desires—a fact for which Locke is, if anything, apologetic. But Locke also explains that we actually discover greater liberty in pursing the greater good, because it frees us from living only for our own desires:

"THE NECESSITY OF PURSUING TRUE HAPPINESS is the Foundation of Liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action, and from a necessary compliance with our desire, set upon any particular, and then appearing preferable good, till we have duly examined whether it has a tendency to, or be inconsistent with, our real happiness: and therefore, till we are as much informed upon this inquiry as the weight of the matter, and the nature of the case demands, we are, by the necessity of preferring and pursuing true happiness as our greatest good, obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases."
- On Power (Essay on Human Understanding, 2:21:52, John Locke, 1689).

Locke is pointing out that happiness from the satisfaction of physical desire is temporary and transient. By suspending our own desires and acting for the greater good, we can obtain a more permanent and solid happiness. The similarity of this to the four Noble Truths, the foundation of Buddhism, is not because Locke himself knew the theories of Buddhism, but rather that both methods start by considering the fundamental nature of our existence, and so both systems arrived as the same conclusion independently.
Therefore Pursuit of Happiness is the Tertiary Right because, in pursuing true happiness, we act not simply for ourselves, but for the greater good, which results in the product of our noble society. On this basis, individuals are entitled, for example, not only to property, but also to state-supplied education. But individuals can only pursue happiness insofar as it does not interfere with life and liberty. Nonetheless, while pursuing happiness is a right, acting for the greater good is not a requirement. In order that God may judge us in our treatment of others, our acts for the greater good cannot be forced against our will, except in as much as necessary to maintain the social contract.
Locke tried very hard to find a way of defining "pursuit of happiness" without including a need for God to judge our actions, but he couldn't quite do it. So the United States decided that pursuit of happiness is a natural right to its citizens, and therefore the declaration of independence is Under the Law of God. But other countries do not acknowledge God in their constitutions, and therefore the modern statement of natural rights, as Human Rights in the United Nations, does not include pursuit of happiness for all. Pursuit of happiness is a unique natural right to the United States, because the nation was formed under God. And that is why the pledge of allegiance is an oath under God (some want God removed from the oath of allegiance, but if it were removed, the natural rights under the constitution would be broken).
Those familiar with natural law sometimes state that existence of God is not necessary to it. And in fact this has become a very big problem in America, because the social contract, as Locke defined it, assumed that pursuit of True Happiness is acting for the greater good of all. As America has slowly removed God from the social contract, Locke's vision has started to break down. For example, according to Locke, the very rich should look after the very poor, and according to the nation's natural rights, the rich cannot be forced to do so. But pursuit of happiness is now mostly considered only a selfish motive in people's minds. The rich do not look after the poor, but instead seek influence and money only for themselves, also manipulating legislature to reduce their own taxes. So an undue proportion of welfare now falls into the tax burden of the lower and middle classes.

Happiness, not Property

Locke's original Treatise on Government defined Property, rather than Pursuit of Happiness, as the third natural right. Because the third natural right is pursuit of happiness, the government has authority over other fields of human activity besides that which people own. For example, it can create transport systems, public schools and universities. Also, it can enforce the rights of people to recreation, resulting not only in its ability to operate public parks, but also permitting it to limit the number of hours that an employer can require of employees. Further, it can help with healthcare and retirement. However, the pursuit of happiness is secondary to liberty, so the extent to which the government can tax and enforce such matters is limited.
Most people who study politics only read Locke's Treatise on Government, and so are unaware of how Jefferson decided on the "sacred and undeniable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." However, it remains the task of the Supreme Court to exercise and interpret the natural rights as Jefferson intended, which is as Aquinas previously defined, promulgation from natural rights. Up to the 1930s, this mostly unknown process of reason not only influenced all of American government, but also remained the highest consideration in the opinions of the highest court in the land, until it was partially supplanted with ideas of legal positivism in the last century; which has attempted to define what is right and wrong purely based on precedence, rather than with the higher moral objective of creating a benign world for the better judgment of each and every soul by God, regardless whatever any particular individual may think of that goal.
As one example, in the original formulation of how this nation would work, it was assumed that the rich, in their pursuit of everlasting happiness, would support the poor houses; and that children would support their parents in old age; thus removing the need for the state to provide social security.. But as it transpired, the idea of acting for the greater good, as the real definition of 'pursuit of happiness.' lost out to a new interpretation of atheistic selfishness, thus requiring the state to mandate taxes in Roosevelt's New Deal. And as perfectly predictable from the above explanation--which should now be abundantly obvious--this is in conflict with the natural law on which this nation was founded, and so the extent of entitlements that the rich should support has become a total stumbling block to the further growth and prosperity of this nation.

.Hence, while others may disagree with their theistic basis, it cannot be ignored as the foundation of peace and lawful order in the nation created by Jefferson's declaration. And the denial of validity for the original empirical formulation of natural rights has not only led to its growing collapse, but also to a widespread ignorance as to what it actually was. And that accounts for the length of this post.

No, natural rights are definitely inalienable. There is no way of separating them from consideration of one person or another, they have to apply to everyone. Therefore, once a fetus reaches the age of 21 weeks and 5 days, at which point it can live independent of the mother, it must be accorded natural rights. — ernestm

If we are to assign rights that are inalienable, then the federal-state distinction is nonsensical, as it means a large governing body can take your rights away. The fact that it is called "California" and is relatively smaller than the entire U.S. does not change what is going on. To my knowledge, for a good portion of U.S. history, the rights in federal documents (Bill of Rights) were only applicable on the federal level, meaning that they were not guaranteed on the state level.

My purpose of bringing up abortions under the case of pregnancy from rape is to illustrate an issue: even if personhood does apply, it does not automatically follow that the right to life always supersedes the right of other's liberty. If I was hooked up on a life support machine by a third party to an innocent, ill person in order to help keep that person alive, I do not think the state or any person can demand that I remain hooked up to this person, even if it means his death. I cannot have the entirety of my liberty and freedom sacrificed to save a life. This, again, returns to economic concepts. There are actions the government can talk- regulations, increasing taxes on certain industries, increasing taxes to pay for programs- that will save lives. We know this. It does not follow from this that the state must implement those programs to the point of the act utilitarian's dreams.

This, of course, assumes that the conceptus is a person in the legal sense, as well as the moral sense, both of which can be doubted (or, at least, doubted enough to create problems for the pro-life side).

NO Chany, the point of federalism is that there are not fixed interpretations in all peoples' minds as to what should constitute human law. So the original idea was that the federal government imposes no authority to the states in such cases, and as long as the decisions of the states do not diminish the natural rights of any one person in any way, people are then free to move where they feel happiest and make the laws for themselves.

And it was not construed in terms of limitations, but rather as an enforcement of 'positive law'--- as to all people having the right to freedom of choice in speech, religion, and political preference within those bounds. This was because it was believed that people would naturally choose to act for the greater good. But with the grown of atheistic selfishness, the system no longer works, and people instead quarrel about their selfish desires, rather than look to a benign future with faith and hope. That is to say, they regard the rights selfishly, rather than thinking of the desire of God for all His children to live peacefully and without struggle. That is why you think life is less important than liberty.

Again, entirely unresponsive. Quoting long passages of some paper you wrote is a waste of space.

What you've not responded to is:
1. Why viability defines personhood under natural rights theory;
2. Why states should be given the right to decide when abortion is appropriate but not the federal government under natural law theory; and
3. How can you argue that rights can never be legitimately denied and still maintain a criminal justice system?

Enumerate your answers 1, 2, and 3 or instead admit you can't respond because you lack the intellectual discipline to organize your responses to the questions asked.

So I already know the next question, which is "why is it necessary to continue to keep God in USA's social contract?" And the reason, I have tried to explain, is that without God, the right to liberty and to pursue happiness are gradually destroyed, because all that is left within natural law is a Randian system of survival of the fittest. And the rich just get richer, and the poor just get poorer, until the entire system falls apart. Which is exactly what is happening. Empirically.

The problem you are having is very common. You don't like the answer so you ignore it. I gave you my answer. I put quite a bit of time into editing it for you. I would say you are welcome, but apparently you don't care, so further discussion is pointless.

You didn't answer. You never do. In fact, my last question enumerated questions with the request you provide enumerated responses. As anticipated, you didn't do that. What you did is repeat your dissertation on natural rights theory, offering no indication that you have any ability to defend it by responding to any question critical of it. Your defense is to just declare yourself an expert and state any criticism arises from ignorance. It's intellectual fraud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question#Complex_question_fallacy
don't expect rhetoric 101 to work on someone who has read Plato in Greek. Translation is not effortless, so one has plenty of time to consider the tricks.

Where did you answer the question about how your version of natural rights applies to viability as the definition of personhood? The "we are all created equal" part? You have to answer the specific questions and show how your answer applies to them. How you answered those questions is not clear.

Well that I can answer, and I did answer that over a number of posts and repeated several times, but I will say it again briefly.

First, natural law is based on the human condition. In accordance with the laws of nature, when a woman is pregnant, then she has a baby if there are no untoward events. When a person interferes with that process, the person is taking individual power over that of life of the person that will be born. But natural rights must be accorded to all people without exception. Therefore that is a violation of the child's natural rights.

Additionally, in the American formulation of natural rights, which is based on a theistic premise, the child is also a child of God. By not permitting the child to live, one is depriving God of the ability to grant eternal life to that individual in the manner that God intends. While I understand that is not a concern to most people these days, it remains the argument that Jefferson would have believed true had the legal issue of rights to abortion existed in his own life. .But it wasn't a legal issue in his life, not because it wasn't possible, but rather because that belief was rather considered obviously true in his time. No one at all wanted legal rights to abortion., Thus, for those holding that the 'intent of the founding fathers' should govern constitutional law, however ridiculous that Hamilton's formulation to assert constitutional law over natural law may be, it still remains true.

As for liberty or pursuit of happiness taking precedence over life, that results from a misunderstanding of *why* liberty is a natural right in the first place. Similarly for pursuit of happiness So I explained if fully.

finally, for the question of a bad pregnancy where either only the child or only the mother cdould survive, there is no clear answer to that from natural rights, and so it should not be a part of federal law, but a decision for the States to answer. And a similar case would now be made for severely deformed children, such as from the Zika virus; and for conceptions that are not of the mother's free will.

Thank you for phrasing the question so I could answer it.

Oh I'm sorry, I left out the last issue. That is, modern legal positivists, such as Hart, attempt to do away with promulgation from natural law to constitutional law entirely. And that is frequently taught in law schools now, almost to the exclusion of any other legal theory, because lower courts are expected to act entirely within the US legal code. But this doesn't work in debating issues not directly defined by existing constitutional law, because the USA used Brtain's abrogation of natural law to justify militant takeover. While lawyers inside this nation are rather blithe to the implications of that now, the USA has no authority to interact with other sovereign nations, internationally, if the foundation of natural law is removed, and the USA becomes no more than a rebel insurgency that the world should eliminate. And those in positions of international diplomacy are very aware of that.

I'm not sure if you're purposely evasive or just not following the question. We all understand you shouldn't abort a person. The question is when does a fetus become a person and why. Your previous answer directly implicated Roe v. Wade, which provided viability criteria for when abortions were permissible. However, that criteria has nothing to do with personhood, but has to do with State's rights versus maternal rights.

You've claimed that natural rights theory ought to guide us in all abortions decisions and you've criticized American Constitutional jurisprudence for its failure to adhere to natural rights theory, yet you rely upon that same criticized jurisprudence for your basis for allowing certain abortions.

This is to say: natural rights theory offers us no practical way of determining when abortion is acceptable, so we must fall back on Constitutional theory for an answer, which creates an internal inconsistency in your position.

That is, modern legal positivists, such as Hart, attempt to do away with promulgation from natural law to constitutional law entirely. And that is frequently taught in law schools now, almost to the exclusion of any other legal theory, because lower courts are expected to act entirely within the US legal code. — ernestm

The distinction isn't between natural and constitutional law, but it's between natural and positive law. It's entirely possible to interpret the Constitution in a natural law way. There is not a consensus regarding the best way to interpret the Constitution, but law schools typically embrace those Justices who have offered creative interpretations based upon general priciples of justice instead of those who have insisted the text be strictly construed. That is, law schools tend to be liberal leaning.

While lawyers inside this nation are rather blithe to the implications of that now, the USA has no authority to interact with other sovereign nations, internationally, if the foundation of natural law is removed, and the USA becomes no more than a rebel insurgency that the world should eliminate. — ernestm

If what you mean by "natural law" is absolutist, non- relative moral principles, there most certainly hasn't been an abandonment of that in US society. The battle between the left and right in the US is ideological, with both sides arguing their principles are right.

The battle between the left and right in the US is ideological, with both sides arguing their principles are right. — Hanover

NO, that's impossible in a theory of natural law in this nation. If there may be a difference of opinion in interpretation, then there is no basis for a social contract that avoids a Lockean state of war. That is why the natural law must be inalienable--equally applicable to everybody--and undeniable, as Jefferson originally stated.

It is possible for such a conflict to exist in a social contract based on Rousseau's theory. But as Rousseau defines the social contract as driven by the will of people, rather than by a state of nature, it is not based on natural law. That would mean the social contract in the USA is not based on the laws of nature and God, which would void the source of authority for an independent nation, and we would only be a rogue British state which, as USA's enemies claim, deserves to be eradicated.

What the political process attempts to do is to corrupt the natural law in favor of one group. So in fact, Rosseau's social contract is ALSO in operation in this country. However, it is a corruption of the original social contract, which was Lockean, and which allowed for no such variation of opinion as to how it should be interpreted, because all its tenets derive directly from the human condition

Have I answered the questions properly now?

Over and over you miss the point. We can all agree as to the idea that there is a natural law, inalienable, and bestowed by God, and we can all agree as to the significance of that, but that hardly means there will be agreement as to what that law is on a non- abstract, concrete level.

For example, does natural allow for the death penalty? Does nature forbid the taking of life absolutely, or does it permit it under certain circumstances? What about in cases of self-defense? It is entirely possible that a liberal and a conservative can arrive at different conclusions, yet both insist God is on their side. The inability to determine what natural law decrees is a Philosophy 101 objection, yet instead of trying to offer a response to it, you act like it doesn't exist.

And that was issue with abortion law. You have never offered any explanation for why natural law attaches only to viable fetuses and not pre-viable ones, as if viability is a God given framework that coincidentally defines personhood and that was discovered in 1973 by Justice Blackmon as describing when a State's interest begins and ends.

No. Natural law does not allow for the death penalty. Life has to be a primary right, or it doesn't work. The result of denying the primary right to life is again, societal rebellion against authority, which is then justified, post hoc, after the government executes an innocent person, as has happened far too often in the past.

The taking of life in self defense is also against natural rights. There exist plenty of means of self defense which are not lethal.

A liberal and conservative can have different opinions about their own desires. The point of positive law is that it does not exist to curtail the rights of any individual, and the point of the natural law in the united states is that the choices people make which are constructive for society are those which are for the greater good. THEREFORE pursuit of happiness is a natural right. The problem with your questioning is that it imposes a negative and selfish perspective of rights which people have by some kind of entitlement BECAUSE they have natural rights,. That is not answerable.

I answered the question on abortion three times now. It is a POSITIVE perspective, not a NEGATIVE perspective. When a woman is pregnant she will have a baby, unless there is some untoward circumstance. She has the right to have that baby, and the baby has a right to life. For cases where only the mother or child could survive, there can be no resolution from natural rights, and therefore it falls on the states. In cases where the baby has serious deformity or illness that impede natural life, then there is no answer from natural law and it falls on states to decide, so that people can choose their preferred result. Having said that, I am personally rather offended with your attitude for untoward events as a justification. When there are untoward events and either the mother or baby cannot survive, then it is a very tragic situation, and everyone, in a benign social contract, should want all babies to live. But if you are forcing me to answer your question yet again, then I have to say, you sir, are a cad. and that is my final answer.

I certainly don't want to point out to you that the taking of life is irreversible, a choice made to terminate life can never be taken back, and many people are extremely envious of others having babies, and would be glad to adopt them. And finally the parents themselves might change their minds and regret a decision to kill their own offspring but cannot be saved from that tragic consequence.. That should be too obvious to even require stating So you are a cad searching for any method whatsoever to kill beautiful babies, and are just as morally destitute as the Syrian Assad terrorists with their poison gas.

No. Natural law does not allow for the death penalty. — ernestm

Yet Jefferson was specifically in favor of the death penalty. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html

As was Locke: At the end of the opening chapter of his Second Treatise of Government, Locke describes political power in the following terms: ‘Political Power then I take to be a Right of making Laws with Penalties of Death, and consequently all less Penalties, for the Regulating and Preserving of Property, and of employing the force of the Community, in the Execution of such Laws, and in the defence of the Common-wealth from Foreign Injury, and all this only for the Publick Good.’
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1344457

Did Locke and Jefferson get it wrong?

Under your logic all punishment would be invalid. Imprisonment is a removal of liberty, a natural right also.

Can you acknowledge that a right without a remedy for its violation is no right at all? If I have the right to possess my car but no right to stop you from taking it, what does it mean to have that right?

The taking of life in self defense is also against natural rights. There exist plenty of means of self defense which are not lethal. — ernestm

I'm considering a hypothetical where there in no way of self defense other than that which is lethal. You can't change the hypothetical.

I answered the question on abortion three times now — ernestm

Nope. You said viability was the cut off date for permissible abortions. Why is that the case? Do you no longer hold that position?

So you are a cad searching for any method whatsoever to kill beautiful babies, and are just as morally destitute as the Syrian Assad terrorists with their poison gas. — ernestm

And despite thinking this conversation couldn't get any stupider, just like that it did.

As I said, I gave you my final answer. Third time. I have no desire whatsoever to read someone who just wants to justify killing. You're not paying me anything, and your spirit is too ugly to behold for free.

Thank you for answering. I now understand your exact position. I admit you did answer them, though I believe the spacing of the posts and the massive amount of text that was disconnected form those posts created issues. If I may critique your posting style, I find that the text you cite from stuff you previously wrote can make things seem like you are talking at us, not with us, if that makes any sense. I know writing out everything again is a pain, but at least try to edit out the sections a bit more and explain how it a applies a bit better.

I am interested in the topic and wish to continue discussing it. Two questions:

1. Is the right to life a positive right or a negative right (or something else, like a right that requires both negative and positive duties)? In other words, per the right to life, do I have to only not take actions to harm and kill others, or do I have to take actions to preserve and support life?

2. If the right to life is unalienable, and if the conceptus, no matter the circumstances, has a right to life, how could some individual states decide that? I agree with what one of the earlier posters said- if the right to life is unalienable and nothing can overcome this right, then the right cannot be waived just because the conceptus is the result of rape, has a mental/physical deformity (to do so would say those with disabilities have less of a right to life), and other such cases.

1. You stated that the death penalty violated natural rights in opposition to Locke, the person cited for your authority on natural rights. 2. You offer no explanation for why any punishment would ever be valid under natural rights. 3. You offer no explanation for why viability offers a cut off for when abortion is illegal. 4. I am generally opposed to abortion and seek no justification for it.

I'm sorry I don't have more time today to answer you more fully, but I can quickly the idea is of 'positive law' creating 'rights,' rather than 'positive rights.' But from Locke's perspective, positive law works differently than you might think. The point of positive law is to enable a better society, increase peace, and reduce conflict. That is, if people are guaranteed life, and free to act as they wish, then they might choose to act for the greater good, which results in a better society, THEREFORE liberty and pursuit of happiness are natural rights, and THEREFORE people can choose their government. It is predicated on the premise that humans are on the whole good. Locke believed the state of nature to be benign--people mostly happily living in peace without quarrel, who need to be protected from natural disasters and rather infrequent evil individuals. It is a collaborative and constructive vision, with a main emotion of enjoyment

That was a big reversal from Hobbes, who assumed humans are on the whole bad, and thus need an authoritarian system to punish people into behaving cooperatively. It is predicated on the assumption that given freedom, people will naturally choose to steal, kill, rape, and exploit. To Hobbes, the main emotion in state of nature is fear. Therefore, in Hobbes' view, democracy is bound to fail, there can be no positive law, and he suggests that a feudal system is the only workable form of government.

One way of looking at it is to think that if the positive law in Locke's vision collapses, then society has no choice to regress into a Hobbesian state. Locke himself called this 'a state of war' arising from collapse of a social contract based on the state of nature.

On your second point, I agree with you personally, once one understands how the idea of inalienability works, it is actually a lot of effort to justify exceptions at all. I could explain some reasoning, but I am going to need a little time to answer it peaceably.

So. First baby step;. The correct way to approach the question is not "what rights do I have which the government may not take away?". The correct question is: "what authority must the government have to maximize everyone's rights?"

Because that results in the greatest liberty, and hence the greatest prosperity and well being of all. The most frequently cited example these days is water rights, starting from a golden era of plenty. People divide labor in the Socratic way. One person decides to farm fish and buys all the lakes. But then there is a draught. The wrong way to approach this problem is for the person who now owns all the water to ask: "why should I sell my water for less than the maximum profit I can get?" The correct question is: How much authority does the government have to limit the price which it pays the lake owner so that everyone can have water?

In this case, the answer according to natural law is, quite a bit of authority, because water is essential to life. Life takes precedence over liberty and pursuit of happiness, and only the lake owner has water, so the lake owner, in the interest of the greater good, has to provide the water. However, the state cannot deprive the lake owner himself of the ability to run a fish farm, as according to his own desires and chosen life pursuit. Therefore, the equation is very straightforward. The government pays sufficient money for the lake owner to rebuild his fish farm to the same condition as it would have been without a drought, and takes all the water needed to ensure that no one suffers from thirst.

By contrast, let's suppose there is a manufacturer of soccerballs, and there is a shortage of materials to make them. the pursuit of happiness is a much lower priority, but it still exists. If many children are playing soccer at schools, the government can legitimately have the authority, under natural rights, to raise some taxes in order to pay for the increased cost of materials to make soccerballs. But as the absence of soccer balls only limits children's' freedom to a limited extent, the amount of taxes which the government can collect is proportionally much less.

So that is the first straightforward example of how natural law works in real-world situations; it is a system of hierarchically arranged needs of the society to prosper, and a beautiful thing it is too, isn't it?

So, to clarify:

I asked: Why do you say that Locke's theory of natural rights prohibits the death penalty when Locke himself specifically said it didn't?

You responded: I refuse to talk to someone who likes to kill beautiful babies.

Might it be you don't really understand natural rights theory, so when called upon to defend it, you simply reiterate the text of the theory, and when relentlessly pressed, you resort to name calling? I mean this is a philosophy forum after all, which doesn't mean you just get to assert theories, but you actually have to offer some support and defense of them.

I am sorry It's going to take me a couple of days to get to the next part.