|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Human Rights | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
In the thread A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore
Michael Moore makes a pledge from liberals to conservatives (of which I am neither): 8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived. My reply to that was quote: Then everyone started getting concerned that I was not concerned about the rights of a woman. My reply to that was:
quote: Chiroptera responds She also has the right to have intercourse, and to alleviate any undesired complications that might result from it. So I asked her why that is a right. Being that birth control is not 100% full proof, or natural, I can't see how this is a right for two consenting adults. The same goes for the man, as he is part of it, and can be an influence on the woman’s decision to get an abortion. (of which I am guilty of). When I think of human rights, this is what I think of:Human Rights As I read that, I really don't see anything that could be applied to what is claimed by chiroptera and others. The obvious answer is because you can get an abortion, that makes it a right. But there was a time when you couldn't, and they are fighting to remove that option. So I will not accept that answer. It doesn't fully describe why it is a right. A starving child has a right to food. The child has done nothing to put himself in harms way. If a woman gets raped, then I feel she has a right to an abortion. But the combination of the two events, consensual intercourse, and abortion together, I feel is just not a right, and I would like to hear arguments as to why it is. In this thread we are not going to talk about abortion. Abortion is legal. I also don't want to talk about when life begins in the womb. Those two subjects have been beaten to death already. So this is the question, and the topic,Why is it a right for both a man and a woman to have consensual sex, AND get an abortion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Ultimately the life of the unborn child depends on the choices the mother makes. If she does not want to be pregnant, then she can insure the death of her unborn child. So, basically, it is her choice.
Whether or not that is morally wrong, I don't think is the discussion here. What I don't get for this thread is the whole human rights thing. Do you want an argument for abortion being a human right? From above, to me it seems that before we define the rights and whether or not abortion is in there, that the life of the unborn child depends on the choices the mother makes, so it kinda looks like a right by default.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But the combination of the two events, consensual intercourse, and abortion together, I feel is just not a right, and I would like to hear arguments as to why it is. Nobody has a right to demand tenancy inside of another human being against their will, just as you don't have a right to live inside someone else's private property if they don't want you to. It doesn't matter how you got in in the first place. If I invite you over to my house for pizza, I can still demand that you leave. Just because I invited you over for the night doesn't mean you get to stay for months. It doesn't matter if you don't have any other place to go.
A starving child has a right to food. No, actually, he or she doesn't. Just because you believe you have need of something I have, doesn't mean you get to take it from me against my will. I might be a bad person for witholding food from a starving person, but if they put me in an armlock and take it from me, they're still a thief. There's a reason that we can't simply go around abducting people and harvesting their organs to help those who need them. People have soverignty over their own bodies. It's the second most fundamental right. Another's need does not produce a legal obligation on anybody else.
Why is it a right for both a man and a woman to have consensual sex, AND get an abortion? Why is it a right for both a man and a woman to eat a hamburger, AND drink a diet soda? The reason people have a right to consent to intercourse, and withhold consent to being pregnant, is the same reason they have the right to do anything else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Just because I invited you over for the night doesn't mean you get to stay for months. It doesn't matter if you don't have any other place to go. What if kicking them out of your house ensues their death?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What if kicking them out of your house ensues their death? Too bad for them. Not my problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What if kicking them out of your house ensues their death?
Too bad for them. Not my problem.
That's mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That's mean. No question. But it's meaner still to tell people they have to have unwanted roommates, or a forced birth, just because somebody believes they need to do that. It basically comes down to whether or not life is more important than freedom. Of course, everybody dies eventually.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But it's meaner still to tell people they have to have unwanted roommates, or a forced birth, just because somebody believes they need to do that. Which is less mean than kicking someone out who you invited over knowing that when they leave they'll die.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Which is less mean than kicking someone out who you invited over knowing that when they leave they'll die. Only if you think freedom and self-determination are valueless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Only if you think freedom and self-determination are valueless. It doesn't neccessarily make freedom valueless but you got me on the self-determination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alacrity fitzhugh Member (Idle past 4317 days) Posts: 194 Joined: |
Riverrat:
You cannot have the right to not have intercourse unless you also have the right to intercourse. If you have the to intercourse then you have the right not to have intercourse. Take away one and the other is no longer a right.
riverrat writes: Being that birth control is not 100% full proof, or natural Neither are seat belts.
riverrat writes: I can't see how this is a right for two consenting adults. Just because you do not have the ability to understand does not make your belief override the rights of consenting adults. See consenting adults except the responsibility for what they do, and if terminating an unplanned pregnancy is the decision, then you need to live with it.
You must have overlooked this partquote: Kind of defeats your stance by using this. Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given. Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Who owns the womb, rat?
The woman or the zygote/fetus?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Riverrat, in my former life I was a very religious person. The transition to atheism for me left many moral issues dangling. I struggled with some of these issues for a long time.
For example, in my former life I believed that sex was evil. I'm a liberal now and I now believe that it's really none of my bussiness about other people's sex lives. However, in the back of my mind sex still carries a kind of negative stigma. You could say it's a conflict between my former and current selfs. I'm probably the only man I know that actually tries to avoid sex with his wife. But at the same time, I cannot deny the fact that just about everyone else I know don't have the same personal view about sex. Most other people I know and know of enjoy sex and would like to have sex as often as possible. I don't see that much of a beauty in sex, but I respect people's opinion and so I don't try to regulate their sexual behaviors. I do, however, encourage people to practice safe sex. But suppose that at the spur of the moment a couple of people decided not to have safe sex and ended up with an unwanted pregnancy. Or perhaps they did practice safe sex and they happened to be part of the few that got unlucky. Should the woman be allowed to discontinue an unwanted pregnancy? I struggled with this question ever since I converted to atheism. My current position isn't clear, even to myself. But consider the following scenario for the moment. Suppose one day I drive a car down the street. I've been described by my friends as driving like a grandmother, so you can imagine how careful I am when on the road. Suppose at the spur of the moment I decide to go over the speed limit and WHAM! I hit a pedestrian. Because of me, this person loses most of his organs and in need of new organs. Unfortunately for him, there ain't no organs for him for 9 months (takes them nine months to artificially create organs for him star trek style). And by the stroke of improbable luck, I'm the only person in the world that's compatible to him. So, I could either volunteer to allow them to plug me up with him for 9 months or let him die. I decide to let him use my organs. Four months later, I become a self-hating, suicidal son-of-a-bitch who doesn't like to share his organs. I want to disconnect myself from this bed-ridden guy and, as a side affect, let him die. There was no written contract when this whole thing started, so I feel that I have no obligation to continue to share my organs with this guy. It was, after all, an accident that I ran him over with my car. The question is should society have the right to force me to continue to share my organs with this person against my will? Or, have I lost my right to complete control over my organs at the moment I accidently ran over him? By the way, for the record, I still consider the goo of cells (aka embryo, fetus, etc.) to be a human being. I guess it's part of my former self I haven't been able to get rid of... Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc The thread about this map can be found here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
What about the man?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024