Human Rights

Of course it does. Yea, but I have a choice whether I want to come over or not, and if I leave, I won't be dead. That is a very very bad comparison. So basically the man has nothing to do with it? What's that reason?
People cannot do whatever they please in this life.

How is it forced, if the person willingly has sex? We all know that contraception is not full proof.

I can have a right to have a gun, but if I kill someone with it, then I have a right to go to jail.Just because we have a right to have intercourse, does not give us the right to be irresponsible with it. I am not creating anything when I drive a car. And driving a car is not strictly for pleasure. e have been through the whole car/sex comparison, and it really doesn't apply. Oh I do understand perfectly, and many people agree with my thoughts. So it is not correct to say I do not understand. Plus I have been through it first hand, and have a excellent perspective on it. Ok, that is 100% correct, but that doesn't make it a right. Some could use that same line of protection for an unborn baby. No one is being attacked here, just because I do not see it as a right. When you create something, then legally disgard it, you are the one in control of your reputation.
Article 12 does not apply.

You are going down the same path as crashfrog. I don't see what that has to do with rights.The woman owns the womb, and she and a man can create something in it, and then destroy it. How is that a right?

I am not arguing that here. She can if she wants legally. I may not agree with that, but thats not for here. I just wouldn't call it a right.Thanks for your openess BTW.As for your comparison of driving a car and all that, first off, it only takes one person to do that. Driving a car can be for both pleasure and necessity. Regardless, let's say you hit my kid (OMG) and you offer to hook yourself up. I don't think I would let you, unless you agreed to carry it out until the end. Either way, it may be your right to offer to help, but I don't see it as a right to withdraw your help, unless something was really wrong.

Gee, you failed on that one, you have the right to bear arms and the right not to bear arms, the right to vote the right not to vote. By using your right you are accepting the implications of the right. Your logic is that because birth control is not a 100% that eliminates a right. Seat belts are not a 100% . Plus, I'm not using driving as the subject, I'm showing you the error of your logic. As evidence in this thread, many more disagree. Majority rule, right? It is right, and all your histrionics and hand waving will not change that. Not unless they extend rights to life that is not human yet. You quote mine the UN human rights just like you quote mine the constitution. It says No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, comma then the word nor to continue. This falsifies your assertion that (sic)No one is being attacked here... Seeing as how this is part of your defense of your position, show me where it says that, or own up to fact that what you used to start with shows your wrongOne last thing:First you had an abortion? Second, like your the only one. Third, I was present during a late 2nd trimester abortion, that right present, were you present?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.

Ok, suppose instead of a car as we know it, it's a futuristic car that takes 2 people to drive. There's a reason I went into sex at the beginning of my last post. For me, sex is for pleasure only. But as far as I know, many people would argue that sex is a necessary part of their lives. I don't have that much of a sex drive, so I can't really argue against that point.The reason I used the car as an example is because for many people driving is very similar to sex. It's somewhat necessary sometimes and not necessary in other times. You can always take the bus, taxi, or ask someone else to drive for you. In about the same way, you can masturbate, mutually masturbate with a partner, or simply have someone give you a blowjob. But obviously a lot of people out there chose to have sex, just like a lot of people out there chose to drive rather than take the bus or taxi. You should really try to see the implications of the examples rather than nitpick for every little hole in them. That is your opinion. However, many people, like crash and schraf, hold the opinion that one person can offer to help and then take that offer back half way through.This, I think, is where rational debate ends and personal opinion begins. It is obvious to crash and schraf that a person should be able to retain full ownership and control over his/her most personal properties (his/her organs) at all times and that no obligation should superceed such ownership and control. You, on the other hand, is convinced that there are certain obligations in life that can and do superceed a person's complete ownership and control over his/her organs.I'm leaning toward crash's position. However, I still hold doubts about such position.

---

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

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

quote:

---

You are going down the same path as crashfrog. I don't see what that has to do with rights.

---

It has to do with rights because a person has a right to control their own bodies.

quote:

---

The woman owns the womb, and she and a man can create something in it, and then destroy it. How is that a right?

---

You agreed that the woman, not the zygote/fetus, owns her womb'.Thus, she has the right to contol what happens to it, just like she has the right to control anything else that happens to any other part of her body.

I fear you may have picked a bad analogy here..It is your problem if you have cause that person to be in your house (against their will) and put them in a situation where they have dependancy on your 'Hospitality' for their very existance.

I believe his premise includes "and". He doesn't believe it is a right to have sex AND have an abortion.Should A AND X be a right? His point was that when you buy a gun, that might be a right, but that doesn't mean killing somebody is. It is okay to use that gun, but it doesn't follow that you should forego observations of other rights/implications.A hit and run is an accident, and people go to jail for it, despite being perhaps more innocent than a person who will abort WILLINGLY (parameter B), after WILLING sex(parameter A).

The "zygote", as you call it, is not their own body. The matter "zygote" occupies it's own space. There is a zygote in woman, but not a woman in zygote.A zygote, can be a recognizabley formed person. You did say that a person has a right to control their own body. Yet reality dictates that she somewhat did forego this right when she fulfilled parameter A, knowing that it would lead to a potential person 2 with those same rights.The zygote lives, and is in woman-territory. Should I now go and shoot Americans and get them out of the U.K, after waving holiday brochures at them, and saying how great the U.K. is?I'm off to load my uzi 9mm.

No, it doesn't. Irrelevant. If you want to save these fetuses, find a womb replacement. That none exists right now is hardly the woman's fault, and it doesn't place her under an obligation to use her uterus to gestate an unwanted tenant. With her uterus? Yeah, he has nothing to do with it. Then that's where we disagree. I believe that people have free will and self-determination. You believe you know what's best for everybody.

Because consent for sex is not consent for pregnancy. Those are two different things.

quote:

---

The "zygote", as you call it, is not their own body.

---

But it is in the woman's body, which she has a right to control.

quote:

---

The matter "zygote" occupies it's own space.

---

No, it occupies a woman's uterus.

quote:

---

There is a zygote in woman, but not a woman in zygote.

---

Right. A woman has a right to control what happens to her own body, including what takes up residence in that body.

quote:

---

A zygote, can be a recognizabley formed person. You did say that a person has a right to control their own body.

---

What is your definition of a "person"?Can you explain how a zygote/fetus is a person?

quote:

---

Yet reality dictates that she somewhat did forego this right when she fulfilled parameter A, knowing that it would lead to a potential person 2 with those same rights.

---

Who owns the womb?The woman or the zygote/fetus?

quote:

---

The zygote lives, and is in woman-territory.

---

Who owns the womb?The woman or the zygote/fetus?

I disagree. If you have sex, and are using birth control but it fails (or even simply don't wish to be pregnant), I think you've made it pretty clear that you were not inviting the zygote over; the zygote entered, in fact, clearly against your will.If I open a window to cool a pie, and you use it to break into my kitchen, that's unlawful entry, even though my actions provided the mode of egress. My will was obviously that you not break into my house; it doesn't matter what actions I took that allowed you to get inside.