Human Rights

And I am pointing out that rights have consequences and consenting adults accept those consequences with they partake of their rights. Bad news, your not killing somebody when you have an abortion, and in the Us you can use your right of arms and use deadly force when your in imminent danger.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.

So; Has become; So basically it's anything you say, goes? Shraff, it's my house - I have no right to kill anyone in it. I meant the matter zygote, which has it's own space at all times, according to physics.If you refer to zygotes, then I refer to recognizable-persons. I have seen recognizable persons from the womb, that have been killed. They're not a bunch of cells, they have recognizable homo sapien- features. Are you using the term zygote to distance yourself from the true words? That a baby is killed?The semantics are irrelevant. You call it a zygote, a fruitbar or a baby. We both refer to ones that are formed to a recognizable extent, in many cases. The dictionaries. But you don't accept definitions anyway, like in the thread where you didn't accept teh definition of exploitation. You will only accept a definition that goes thus;"a bunch of cells that can't feel think, and is a worthless zygote ready for extermination".Let's call it "it" then. why shouldn't it have rights? Don't answer the question with a question Shraff. No semantics either.

Mike, I think you are using a strawman against crashfrog and schraf. Nobody is talking about killing the fetus, or the person inside your house. They are talking about evicting an unwanted being.

---

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

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

That was a missed point if ever I read one. There is no error in knowing that there is a huge difference between driving a car, and having sex between two consenting adults. There is also a huge difference in the need to rely on a seat belt, as opposed to relying on birth control. My logic is fine.Next time I get pregnant from driving a car though, then my logic will be flawed. Oh no. I just want to put my thought on the subject to the test. We are just discussing here, and emotions should fall by the wayside.
How dare you say majority rule, I am sure in a heartbeat you will be the first to point out that just because 1/3 of the world believes in Jesus, that doesn't make him real. Hand waving? What was that sentence? We are not going to discuss when life begins. But in some states people have gone to jail for harming a fetus. So the possibility remains. Please explain how I am attacking anyone, by considering that it is not a right? There is a difference between a right, and a privelage. Where it says what?
Isn't it beyond obvious that if you consentually have sex, then get an abortion, that you have added that experience to your own reputation, and it has nothing to do with me? Yes, I was, and I supported the idea of getting one fully. A thing that I regret a bit. But life can be full of regrets, if you let it get to you. I have discussed this fully in other threads, I don't want to start talking about here again.Try leaving emotion out of this discussion, and just discuss.

Still I don't find that to be a comparison. I don't like dealing with comparisons, as they are not 100% accurate. If I want to learn about the properties of metal, I study metal, not jello. The only thing I learn about metal by studying jello, is what metal is not. Having intercourse is not driving a car. Woman do not get pregnant from driving a car, maybe from parking Well this is why I specifically mention consensual intercourse, and not sex.If I were to compare driving a car accurately to the kind of sex I am talking about, it would be like this.
Your driving a car through an empty parking lot. Without any barricades, you can get to the other side easily.
If there is a barricade, then you will not get to the other side, unless the barricade fails.Seat belts are for saving lives, not keeping you from driving the car. Well this is why I have trouble with comparisons. Why not just deal with the issue directly. I don't find any logic in comparing seat belts to birth control, when looking at the overall picture. NOOO, this is where we agree. I believe it is the right of a woman to retain full control over her organs, and the such. She has a right to decline sex. Once another life/thing is started in the womb, it really isn't part of you is it? Please remember we are talking about rights here. I believe your right ends once you decide to have intercourse. I am guilty of it too, just so you know, and I am not a hypocrite, just speaking from experience.I have heard all the comparisons, and to me making comparisons like calling a fetus a tumor, and having sex as opposed to wearing a seatbelt, are all weak, and make no logical sense whatsoever. It's as if people are now programmed with these types of responses. I would never compare intercourse to wearing a seat belt, unless it's a crotch belt with a vibrator and sperm ejaculator, and a consenting mind.Edited by riVeRraT, : spelling

ABSOLUTELY !!!!
That is why you can decline intercourse.A zygote is not part of the woman’s body. There is a large difference between chopping off your leg, and having an abortion. Right, once she decides to have intercourse, she has made that decision, and relinquishes the "right" and it becomes a privilege to rip it out. Zygotes do not "take up residence" like some kind of unwanted tumor. zygotes only get there by a woman having perfect control over her body and making a decision that can lead to the zygote getting there in the first place. Zygotes do not ask to be put there, or wander off the street, or do they happen from driving a car. Stay on topic, I strictly asked that we not discuss when life begins.
We are talking about rights, not life. The woman, the woman. She has the right to consent to intercourse.You are not making a case for yourself, only reinforcing my position. You have not shown how it is a right for both things to happen.

Try using that analogy in a court of law to show intent.
You'll have to explain why it doesn't matter.
The reason why it matters is obvious. It is a persons right to have intercourse/not have intercourse. But the fetus didn't ask to get there, or was it even invited. Comparisons suck, they don't work. I can show you several reasons why your comparison do not compare at all. Try dealing directly with the topic, not comparing getting pregnant to coming over someones house. It doesn't compare. Where are you chiroptera?????? Hell no. I am not looking to tell people when they should have intercourse or not. Intercourse is not necessary for our own survival, as much as I would want it to be.All the free will in the world won't get you a date with Katherine Zeta Jones. People cannot do whatever they please. You are comparing things to individuals, when we are talking about something that takes two willing adults, and involves a third "life/thing" that has no say in the matter whatsoever, and didn't ask to come into this world.

Yes it is. Thats my point, birth control is not 100% fullproof, we all know that. When you consent to intercourse, you consent to possibly creating life/thing and therfor give up your rights, then it becomes a privilage to correct your "mistake" (which I believe is not a mistake, if I play the lotto, I intend to win, if I lose, it is not a mistake). Before technology existed you could not do this. Technology does not determine our morals and rights. Living in a place where it is legal gives you a privilage also.

That is a foolish statement. It's not against your will, it's against you wishes, wishes you have no control over really, unless you retain from having intercourse. Once you consent to intercourse, you have given up your right to having a thing inside of you.If you force a guest into your house, and the guest is now dependant on being in your house for its survial, then you retain 100% of the responsibilty. You now have the privilage of killing the guest or not trying to let it live. lmao. I came in through your pie. Another bad comparison.

thank you. That is debatable, and not for this thread. Two separate rights. The two of them combined is not a right.If your in imminent danger, and it is not by your own doing, then you can't compare that to getting pregnant. Another bad comparison.

Just how unwanted is it?
Howd it get there?

Yeah, I agree you have trouble understanding. Again, so you can try to comprehend what I'm writing, I'm not talking about driving. Do try to keep up. And you call this logic? I dare in the same why you dare to use your attempt at using the statement 'many believe the same as I do'. Do not really care how many believe in your jesus, this is about your failure to understand rights. Any time you state 'I feel' or I believe' Your feelings and believes are in no why paramount on others rights. Quote mining again. It was you who brought this up after I pointed out that the document that you used in support of your position does not support your position, ;leave your emotions out of the debate. So you now admit it is none of your business, Good than you know understand the errors of your ways. If you supported it than be an adult and live with it, please don't try saying you are, you've started or participated in to many of these to say otherwise. Your funny, why don't you try and follow your own advice.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.

What a disappointing reply!You didn't reply to my actual argument so I guess you agree with my conclusion that it is a right by default? (I doubt it) What about him? He isn't pregnant and he isn't getting the abortion. The child is half his though. It sucks that if I get a girl pregnant and she wants an abortion and I don't, then there isn't anything I can do but cry while they murder my kid. It also sucks that if I get some other girl pregnant and do not want and cannot afford to have the child with her but she is morally opposed to abortion that I can’t refuse to have the child with her. But this is off topic.What do you want to discuss about the man?The topic here is how is abortion a right. I laid out why I think it is a right by default and am wondering why you think it is not a right.One of your arguments is that contraception is not fail proof and that people know that sex can lead to pregnancy so if people don’t want to be pregnant then they shouldn’t have sex and that people do not have a right to have an abortion to fix their mistake.I sorta agree but I don’t see how this makes it not a right. (the part I sorta disagree with is expecting people to be able to not have sex) I think it is a right by default and just because they’re fixing a mistake doesn’t make it not a right. Why don’t you think it is a right?Another anti-right argument revolves around whether or not the unborn child is a person (which you’ve deemed off topic). Let’s assume that the unborn child is a person.Shouldn’t they then have all the human rights as a born person? Even if they’ve taken up residence in the uterus of a woman, which we can agree that she and not the child owns, shouldn’t the child still retain the same rights the mother has. If the mother has a right to not have things done to her body, then shouldn’t the child have those rights as well?Of course none of the above matters if the unborn child is not a person, but that is off topic.So, where do you want this discussion to go from here?Can I get more that a one line reply this time?Can you explain to me what makes it not a right?How’s that new plane flying?
I’ve been busy lately but I’d really like to see the latest videos, I think they are really cool.

Many people (I'd venture to say all people) do things in their lives which bring about unwanted consequences. Someone who smokes cigarettes obviously doesn't do it to get lung cancer, but that is a very real possibility. Someone eating chili may end up with a bad case of heart burn. I would be interested to talk to someone who denied that person their right to take pepto-bismal to relieve their heart burn. Or for the cigarette smoker to seek treatment for their lung cancer. Both of these situations were brought about by direct actions of the individuals, and you (I hope) allow them to get rid of any unwanted consequences they may have received.My question, then, is: Why is sex any different? If someone gets an STD I would certainly hope you would allow them to rid themselves of this unwanted result. Pregnancy (to some) is just another unwanted consequence of sex. And I believe they have the right to fix it.

I don't think the possibility of creating life should void your rights. I think that once you have a human, whether its in your uterus or not, then it deserves the rights as well. The human living inside the womanly owned uterus has the right to life even if that compromises the womans right to her own organs. If you don't like it then don't put yourself in a position to loose your rights. Is that how your seeing it? Natural abortions exists and unnatural abortions are possible without technology. I'm thinking 10 ft dirt belly-flops. Or poisoning the unborn child to death while yourself survives. You should ditch the technology road, IMHO.