Human Rights

Because it can result in another person, with their own rights, to be included in the equation. Assuming the unborn child is a person, wouldn't 'fixing it' be infringing upon the unborn person's rights?

Does an unborn child have any rights?

Assuming that it is a person and that people have rights, yes.ABE:Haven't there been men who have murdered pregnant women been charged with a double murder of the mother and the child?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:

What a ridiculous statement. Why do you think 'no coathanger' symbols are widespread in the pro-choice movement? Technology has never been required in order to get an abortion, just a willingness to take the chances of severely detrimental side effects, up to and including death. All technology has done is to reduce the number of women dying from other cruder forms of termination.TTFN,WK

That's an awful lot of assuming and I don't feel comfortable dealing in what-if scenarios.OBVIOUSLY unborn children currently do not have the right (in the U.S.) to stay in a uterus against one's (the mother's) will.

I'm treading a fine line here, because this issue is one I have real problems forming a solid opinion on.But your analogies are flawed. So.. whose 'will' was involved? was there any free will in this situation? For sure Not in the impregnation.
But the will of the consenting adults brought about the risky situation which gave the opportunity for the conception to occur.I feel like I have argued this point re Adam and eve's free will with Iano a few times. Then I felt that God was guilty of bringing about the circumstances of the fall. I think the same opinion applies here inso far as the parents brought about the conception of the child/embryo. or rather they took the risk knowingly. again.. this all revolves around intent on the part of the intruder.
The only intent in an unwanted pregnancy was the intent to have sex, and the intent to knowingly use methods of contraception know to be less than 100% effective.Of course untill agreement is reached on the status of the embryo as person or a clump of cells (which is strangely barred from this debate) the argument remains impotent (pun intended)

Well we know that people have rights so its really only one assumption: that an unborn child is a person. That's harldy an 'aweful lot', IMHO. Its an important point of disagreement in the abortion debate that shouldn't be handwaved, but it has been deamed off-topic for this thread so lets drop it. Then you should prepare for an uncomfortable time debating on an internet discussion forum. There's a lot of what-if scenarios 'round-here. Yes, legally. But the scope of this thread is why abortion is a right. Your analogies (which are just like the what-if scenarios you're not comfortable with) don't work for explaining why abortion is a right because sex is different as I explained above.The crux of your argument is:

quote:

---

Pregnancy (to some) is just another unwanted consequence of sex. And I believe they have the right to fix it.

---

What gives them the right and why should they have it?I said that they wouldn't have that right if the unborn child was considered a person with their own rights which moves the argument to when is the fetus a person which has been deamed off-topic and we should not discuss.I would like to read your answer to my question though.

Please read my second post in this thread for the answer to this. I think you are letting your emotion about this issue get in the way of seeing clearly what other people are saying.

---

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

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Ok, let's stop using comparasons and go directly to the issue. You've contradicted yourself. So, does certain obligations superceed a person's complete right over his/her own body or not?The reason this is the whole point of the matter is because abortion isn't considered the killing of the fetus you know. Abortion usually just involves disconnecting (what some people like to call) the parasite disallowing it from using the woman's organs. Once that happens, the "parasite" automatically dies and gets flushed out of her system naturally. It's called evicting an unwanted being.

---

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

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Do. You can't use your rights to infringe upon the rights of others, correct?

That's a shady area. If you could think up of a scenario where by protecting my organs I end up infringing other people's rights, I could answer you better, hopefully.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

---

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

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Well, generally speaking, isn't that a given when talking about rights. That you have rights, but you can't use a right to take away another person's right? Well, I don't think it'll work well but I'll play along.You're standing outside next to someone who is smoking cigarettes and want to force them to stop to protect your lungs. You feel you have the right to not have to move nor have to breath second hand smoke and they feel they have the right to not move and to smoke. It could be said that their right to smoke is taking away your right to not breath second hand smoke, but then, you are the one having the problem, not them. So I'd say that you don't have the right to make them stop smoking.

Very shady area indeed. I want to say "outside" is public property so... Thanks for giving me a headache.Next?

---

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

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

so, what?Do you think you have the right to make them stop smoking? I'm sorry (but you asked for it). You kinda seemed to dodge the first one so excuse me for not rushing into thinking up another one. Perhaps you could?

Couldn't you take the hint that I don't have a good answer for your scenario there? I honestly don't know. When I was responding last time, I could think of good arguments for both sides. I did, didn't I. The reason I don't have a good answer for you is because the smoking takes place in a public place, and weird things happen in public places. Now, if it were inside a restaurant, then I have an answer for you.

---

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

​

The thread about this map can be found here.