Human Rights

Alright. This entire thread is going nowhere fast. May I summarise?

quote:

---

So it is strictly about body autonomy, and woman have that, up until they say yes.
  —riVeRraT

---

This is RR's opinion on why abortion should not be a right; if women get pregnant after consensual sex, they do not have the right to terminate the zygote that is violating their body autonomy because when they consented to sex, they consented to the possibility of becoming pregnant.The opposing view is that women may consent to sex, but they do not automatically consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant as well and thus retain their body autonomy, and the right to terminate the zygote that is violating their body autonomy if they become pregnant.All clear? Am I reading everyone right?If I am, then the question appears to be one of whether or not women consent to the possibility of pregnancy by consenting to sex.(I can only hope this helps to get the thread out of the current rut it's in...)

quote:

---

Thats semantics really. If your pregnant, then your 100% pregnant, and it has happened to you. No one actually believes it will happen to them, thats the problem, and just in case it does, there is abortion, wonderful.

---

*sigh*We are talking about consenting to a certainty compared to consenting to a possibility.You maintain that consenting to having intercourse (riding in a car) is tantamount to consenting to being pregnant (getting in a accident).So far, you haven't addressed this point head on. Maybe you don't understand it?

quote:

---

So what am I a partial moron?

---

You asked why you wouldn't get into a hot sports car with your high-heeled wife when you know for certain that you were going to be injured in a high-speed accident.I answered that the reason you wouldn't do that because you aren't a complete moron. Of course, if you know, for absolutely certain, that you will definitely get injured in a high-speed accident if you ride in that car, and you still get into the car, then you ARE a moron.Can't you follow the conversation?

quote:

---

Yes, just like pregnancy, 100% of the blame goes to the parties involved, very good, no your starting to understand, I knew you'd come around.

---

So, this means that if you are driving along on the road, and someone hits your car, it is 100% your fault, because you agreed to have your car hit just by the fact that you drive it?Methinks you are having trouble following the argument.

quote:

---

I said in a sense they are violated, she forfeits her rights to body autonomy when she consents to the possibility of getting pregnant.

---

So, when she is pregnant, who owns her uterus, if it isn't her anymore?

quote:

---

Oh no? Please explain why.

---

There is a big difference between this: and this:

quote:

---

And what happens when it becomes possible to grow a zygote into a human being outside the womb?

---

I suppose people will do that, then. What about it?

quote:

---

Well it obviously isn't men.

---

What are men for, though?

quote:

---

why would you say that after saying that babies are for being born? wtf does that statement have to do with anything I said?

---

I said that because, once again, you focus on "babies being born" and utterly ignore the women who carry and give birth to them.So far, all you have expressed regarding pregnant women in this thread are:1) Blame
2) that the moment they consent to intercourse they give up their human rights

quote:

---

A pregnancy is the start of life. It is growth. It is where we all came from, it is human DNA when left to grow will develop into a living breathing thinking human being. The fact that it is in its developmental stage is irrelevant to what it will become if all is normal.

---

It may develop into that.Or it may develop to a certain point and then die.The most usual thing for fertilized eggs to do is to never implant and be flushed out of the woman's body during menstruation.Isn't that sad? Somebody should collect all of that flushed out "life" and try to save all of those babies, don't you think?

quote:

---

People on life support are not growing, They are hanging on for dear life, neonatal babies are not any different than a zygote, but just in a different stage.

---

Oh really? So, you must think eggs and sperm are no different from a toddler; they are just at a different stage of development.The more you talk, rat, the more absurd and extreme you show your position to be.

quote:

---

They have not choosen to be put in the womb, or forced themselves into the "house" of a woman. It is completely the fault of those parties involved for creating this "life form", and we have become a society that now puts sex at a higher priority than this wonderful ability to create life.

---

Yeah.Who owns a woman's uterus, rat, after she consents to intercourse?You claim that a woman who has had intercourse doesn't own her uterus anymore, so I'm curious to understand who does own it if it isn't her.

quote:

---

Look, I think the problem here is that you consider having a perfectly healthy (from the op) pregnancy is some kind of medical condition. It's not, it is what should happen when two fertile people have intercourse.

---

There is no such thing as a risk-free pregnancy, even in the richest, most medically advanced country in the world.

quote:

---

When I pushed my girlfreind to get an abortion, it was because I did not want the responsibility of taking care of a kid, or paying child support to her. I did not want to live up to my mistake.

---

I would say that it is great that you had the ability to choose, with your girlfriend, the course of action that was right for you as a couple at that time.Nobody forced you to choose that option. You both decided to go that route of your own free will, when there were other obvious options available to you.If you feel bad about it now, then that is your personal issue to deal with.

quote:

---

You even said yourself, it's about body autonomy.

---

Yes, it is. Nobody but ME owns my uterus, rat. Not my husband, not the government, not any zygote or fetus that may attach to the lining.

quote:

---

So which is it, a medical condition, or body autonomy?

---

WTF are you talking about?There are medical risks involved with gestating a pregnancy to term and giving birth.Every person has a human right to body autonomy, including women, including their reproductive organs.I fail to understand how these two statements are related in an either/or fashion, as you have stated them.Be clearer.

quote:

---

Because if the woman pregnant is having a perfectly healthy pregnancy, then she does not need any medical treatment. She can have a healthy pregnancy all on her own. (of course it is better to have doctors, before you even go there).

---

Oh yes? Tell me, what is the maternal death rate for women who are monitored by a health care professioal compared to those who are not?

quote:

---

So a woman who is having a perfectly healthy pregnancy, is not sick or injured, she is just doing what evolution designed her to do (like that one?).

---

So, gestating a pregnancy and giving birth to it are just a walk in the park, and has never been a significant danger to women, right?So, can you tell me what the maternal mortality rate was 100 years ago compared to today?

quote:

---

So it is strictly about body autonomy, and woman have that, up until they say yes.

---

So, when they agree to have intercourse, and they then give up ownership of their own bodies, who owns them then?

Thank you for given a clear and well thought out exposition of what you understand to be a right (finally). I think it is clear now that the source of disagreement is simply a difference of understanding on what should qualify to be a right due to different definitions of what a right is. Even more boring then I first thought. Y`all are not talking about the same thing. You are just talking past each other.

Like I said, these guys are having a repetition contest without trying to understand where each other is standing. It really is a typical riverrat-schraf/crashfrog dialogue.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

What makes you think I don't understand where RR is standing? Just because I don't agree with him?

Only if you can spell summariZe. j/k See, this is the problem. There is no such thing as consenting to the possibility of becoming pregnant. A woman does not have control over what happens in her uterus, once a sperm makes it in there. She already allowed the possibility of that happening.It's a fallcy, and the fallacycop should be all over this. Not unless they don't understand how babies are made.

Ever watch jackass?Wouldn't it be stupid and irresponsible of me? Of course I can, but maybe you don't understand some points of view. I am sorry 'nator, but this has nothing to do with this thread. She's actually sharing her usterus now with another life form. One that was caused by her, and now depended on her, and will (in it's a perfectly health pregnancy) turn into an independant human being in about 21 years. And there are exact similarities in the context of this debate.Niether one will survive without some kind of hosting. Is it human then? Or is it still just a clump of cells not able to survive without a host? Sitting on the couch, drinking beer, and watching football. Actually men should be for the woman, and women should be for the man, in the case of birthing babies. the man should be doing everything possible to accomodate the woman. Isn't that kind of oxy moronic to say that?
How can babies being born not include the woman? No, I never said that.
I did say natural right, which was actually brought to my attention by purpledawn. At the start, I did not know what kind of right to call it. Um no, that's whats supposed to happen, just like when the right sprem and egg meet, they join and form life.There is no relevence bringing up the menstrual cycle and trying to compare it life starting in the womb, pointless, and has nothing to do with this thread. Um no, they haven't joined. Out of millions of sperm only very few can actually make it in. Doesn't that signify something? Or is that another mute point for you? Funny after that last comment, I was thinking the same about you. The woman still owns the uterus.
If she aborts, she is not taking control over her uterus, she already has/had that, she is terminating the life within. She cannot do this naturally.It's still pretty simple, even though you have tried exhaustedly to make it more complicated than what it is. I feel like I just been on a merry-go-round for 18 days and nights. sheesh.

Hey, I was wondering, since you claim to maintain control over your uterus, is there like any tricks you can do with your uterus?

Yet, millions of women have them, hmmm something strange in Denmark. The truth is, I don't know if I should feel bad about it, because I do not know what would have ultimately happened to my child. Maybe she would have been the first lesbian president or something great like that, I don't know. Maybe she/he would have came up with a solution to abortion, or the pperfect contraception. Maybe it would have been the biggest thorn in my side, or the biggest hurt in my life, I just don't know, becuase it's gone.All I know is that it wasn't perfectly clear to me, as it is now(maybe its not even clear now). I was raised liberal, and probably why I thought the way I did. Now I do not find it as right as I did then.You have to remember schrafinator, I am in the middle of 99% of the issues. I can see both sides pretty clearly, and just because I am argueing one side, doesn't make me narrowminded or stupid. See Message 174It's irrelevent to what I am saying. That's another topic. Completely debatable. Probably most woman who do not recieve good medical care live in a place where none is available, and probably live in unhealthy conditions, so...I hate statistics, and it still has nothing to do with this thread. Abortion is not a cure, Unless there is something really wrong, and we are not talking about that, stop it. I got mugged in a park once. Isn't that a reason to try and have a child, not abort one? The risk is less?With your intentions, can you will the sperm not to enter the egg? Nature.

Why is it always 2 on 1???
Dammit!crash can disagree with me, it's ok. f'nator is not

The topic is going round in circles. This thread is just another in a long line of circle wending.My thoughts on the OP are the same as the first time I heard the argument. The argument seems to be roooted somehow in considering an embryo as {not OK to terminate} purely on the basis that the parents consented. If the female didn't consent, then its ok to murder the living person. I think the argument is a little beyond there. A woman with an adequate education knows that pregnancy is possible consequence of sex. Is it a moral right for a woman to terminate an embryo given that she engaged in a behaviour she knew could result in an embryo being created in her womb?My position is fairly straightforward. Until there is some inherent reason why they shouldn't have a 'right' to abort - then they have a right to. People have a right to rectify issues. As long as people have a moral right to declare bankruptcy even if they knew the risks of going into business they should be have a right to abort despite knowing the risks before hand.Nevertheless the argument goes around, neither side really giving ground, it occasionally turns nasty then it hits 300 posts and it stops. For a couple of months...Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : tidying up, trying to avoid strawmaning things too much

So I guess that all hinges on just what is life? Or when does life start?

No. Killing life is perfectly moral unless you're a Jainist. It all hinges about the point when a collection of cells attains the rights associated with an individual human.

I think that because you've been trying to debate his personal opinion. It's like trying to debate why my favorite color is yellow instead of red, or rather why I think everyone's favorite color should be yellow rather than red.RR is basing his argument mostly on his personal opinion as a christian. Notice that much of his emphasis is on punishment of those who he thinks deserve it. If you play with fire, then you deserve to be burned. If you drive irresponsibly, then you deserve to crash and die. If you jump off a building, then you deserve to die. If you have unprotected sex, then you deserve to be pregnant. Such typical christian view of life and hell.You, on the other hand, are trying to emphasize on correcting the error and help those that have made the error. If you play with fire and get burned, you still get treatment for the burn. If you drive irresponsibly, you still get hauled to the emergency room. If you jump off a buildling, well... I guess it depends on whether it's groundhog day or not. If you have unsafe sex, you can still get a another chance by ejecting an unwanted fetus. Such typical bleeding heart liberal attitude.Doesn't really work and yet you guys are keeping at it. Notice how most of the posts here are just repeats of preceding posts in different words. You guys are talking right past each other. You don't agree with how he view rights and when people have them and don't have them or you don't agree with how he is making his argument?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.