Human Rights

That means nothing, back up a step or two. No-one forced her to get pregnant, so by rights, no-one can force her to have the child, if it is not a natural right.By saying that your forcing a woman to have a child, after she willingly consents to intercourse and gets peregnant, is like saying we raped her. You can't change reality. I guess you haven't been reading.
When I play the lotto, I do not consent to losing.
It's really a non-issue this thing of not wanting to get pregnant.

No, she can an abortion these days. I guess maybe your narrowminded?You guys keep talking about consenting to sex, but not consenting to getting pregnant. Like that was an issue. If it is an issue, then what about a man who consents to sex, but does not want to get a woman pregant, and she does get pregnant, then decides to keep the baby. Does the man have any "right" to an abortion? After all the child is half his. He never consented to getting the woman pregnant. Or in the case of the man, he is shit out of luck, then can be taken to court, and have to pay child support for the rest of his life(21 years). He is "FORCED" into having a child. If there is equal rights, why then does this condition exist?

I think we have added to that reason in this thread. It's about responsibility also. It's about life. (I guess thats why they call it "right to life"). It's about who/what gave us life, and why do we need a male and a female to keep it going. It's about the definition of the word "right". As I look in wikipedia, and other various dictionarys, I cannot apply the word "right" to an abortion, unless we are talking in the legal sense only. Read my last message about the man having something to do with it, and how he can be forced into a situation.signed, the woman bigot gay basher fundie drunk, not wearing a seat belt.

quote:

---

So all this control is only based on what is legal, and what is available.

---

No, it is based upon the basic human right to own and control one's own body.

quote:

---

What gives a woman a right over the zygote inside of her? Has she no resonsibility for creating it?

---

Yes she does bear responsibility for creating it. That's why it's her responsibility to decide if she wants to gestate it or abort it.

quote:

---

Oh, why because it didn't go your way?

---

LOL! No, it's because you got it wrong. Apparently, you didn't understand it.

quote:

---

You seem to stress the responsibility, and the irresponsibility of people a lot. So I guess a woman has no responsibility to the life she help create?

---

Yes she does. It is her responsibility to decide if she wants to gestate that life or abort it.

quote:

---

But that is why I showed you that it is wrong to run up high credit card bills.

---

But not everybody runs up high credit card bills if they have credit cards. Is the fact that doing so is legal mean that the government approves of such a thing? Is promoting such a thing?Becasue that's YOUR claim; you say that if something is legal that means that the government approves of that thing.

quote:

---

You cannot make an analogy, when the reasons for what happen differ greatly. It's out of context.

---

Why people do those things isn't the point of the analogy.The point of the analogy is if the government is is responsible for people's choices simply because the governemnt allows choices at all.According to your reasoning, if the government allows people choices by not making laws that make every bad thing we do illegal, it somehow means that the governemnt is actively promoting all of those bad things.

quote:

---

People run up high credit card bills, and its wrong. Plus I don't find it a right to go for bankruptcy, that's a privilage. It's very wrong to me.

---

But it is legal.Clearly, even though declaring bankruptcy is perfectly legal, you find it a very wrong thing to do.And by saying this, you have contradicted your previous claim that you base your morals upon what the government deems is legal.

quote:

---

Yes, partially. It's not always about black and white.

---

I am sorry, but if you were to actually start thinking that flying model airplnes was immoral just because the government made it illegal, that would be a stupid thing to think.

quote:

---

Modulus (hope he is better) and many others thinks it comes down to when life starts in the womb, which seems to go beyond just having control.

---

I do not think that is an accurate recall of what he thinks.Perhaps you can find his statement and quote him.

quote:

---

Your thoughts on control also seem to defy all laws of responsibility.

---

No, not at all. The woman can't help but take responsibility. You just don't seem to accept that getting an abortion [b]is onr option for taking responsibility[/i].

quote:

---

You even called it being stupid and irresponsible, and then called getting an abortion irresponble too.

---

No, that's an inaccurate representation of my views.

quote:

---

That does little to argue in favor of it being a right, other than it being legal.

---

Are you saying that people have no right to be stupid?

quote:

---

Other than it being a legal right to do so, no. Being treated for AIDS is a privelage. Which is in direct proportion to the available treatment.

---

I utterly disagree. Being able to make use of available healthcare is a basic human right.

quote:

---

If there was no treatment for AIDS, would we still have a right to treatment? What kind of right is that?

---

We have the basic human right to healthcare, regardless of how we became ill or injured.

This is an unnatural human interfernce of nature.

I do not base my morals on what the government deems legal.
It's only part of the picture, stop mis-quoting me.The government created bankruptcy laws for people that actually by good intentions, and good actions get into debt, and need a way out. Not for people who go out and blow their loads. There is a huge difference and why your analogy stinks, and I think I get your analogys better than you do.The government has realized that people are unjustly taking advantage of these bankruptcy laws, and now have made them tougher. It depends on the reason. But I hardly think living in a free society that our governement would come up with a bad reason. This is why we need to stay away from analogys, something liberals have a hard time doing? From Message 201
Only because it is available, you missed my point. You didn't address my clear and consise point.

Since this thread will most likely die today with multiple posts from someone, I still no reason to call abortion a natural right for a woman.This has nothing to do with whether it should be legal or not. I think that comes down to when life begins in the womb, which I believe starts from the begining, not when a brain forms or anything else.Regardless of all that, I still don't know if it is right or wrong for abortion to be legal or not. People who get pregnant when they don't want to after having intercourse, are stupid and irresponsible IMO, and I put myself into that category. I am guilty of it. I let my desire for intercourse get in the way of what is responsible of us as human beings. The responsibility of creating life.So I am niether for, or against abortion. I atill won't call it a right, just like I don't think people who purposely run up high credit card bills, and then claim bankruptcy, to take advantage of a system, is a right. It may be a right legally, but not naturally, or even morally.Calling it a right does no justice to the word right, when used in the context of human rights, or civil rights. It's our privilage. Yes one that could be taken away should God, or nature decide to do so. One global disaster, and there would be a whole lot less abortions.Some of you will never agree with me, and that is fine. That is what makes America, not your opinion, or mine, but both, and the freedom have both. Thinking abortion is not a right, is not forcing anything on anyone, so I am completely within my rights to think so.If you want to dislike me for my view on it, thats your problem, I do not dislike you for yours.riVeRraT

---

---

Exposing the lies, one truth at a time!

He can abort any child that's gestating in his body.But that's not what you're asking, of course. You're wondering why a man who doesn't want to be a father doesn't have the right to make a woman have an abortion. And you're asking this because you still don't fucking get it- it's the woman who decides whether or not other human beings get to live inside her uterus.We say that over and over and over again, and it's like it's not making an impression on you. I can only conclude that the idea of a woman making her own decision about who gets to live inside her uterus is so alien and anathema to you that the statement I keep making literally has no meaning to you. It's impossible for you to even conceive of a woman who is actually making a decision.

The reason to call it a right is the lack of a reason to NOT call it a right.Everything is a right until we have a reason for it not to be.

Obviously your the one who doesn't get it.
The woman has a right to choice, she can choose whether to have intercourseor not. It's all about the woman's choice.I guess for you woman are also asexual.

I agree with what your saying. Your just calling my reasoning not sufficient enough.But also everything cannot just be a right, without fitting the definition of the word right, or "rights."There is reason to not call it a right, while there is no reason to call it a right, makes me lean towards it not being an actual right, other than being legal.

What if she changes her mind?

Yeah, I guess so. I understand. "Everything" is usually not a good word to use. Posters here provided reasons for it to be a right, you just didn't find them sufficient enough I do understand your position though.

People have been trying for more than 200 posts to get you to specifically say why it should NOT be a right to have an abortion. Here in the US, something is a right until it is legislated that is is not a right. In order to legislate something, you usually have to have a reason to do so.So basically, it is a right until otherwise shown.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Since I was specifically mentioned in the OP, I should probably give my views.I have a semi-"Social Contract" view of human rights. In my view, people automatically have the right to do whatever the please until it is explained how their actions might interfere with the reasonable expectations or enjoyment of rights of other people.So, people automatically have the right to have sex with whoever they want, whenever they want, until it is explained how sex with a particular person under particular circumstances harms another person.Likewise, a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy until it can be shown that there is a person who has legitimate expectations that the pregnancy be carried to term, or there is a person whose rights will be violated by the termination.So far, the anti-abortion side has failed to convince me that there are people whose rights or expectations are violated by the abortion.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus