Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Rights
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 61 of 303 (367176)
11-30-2006 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Taz
11-30-2006 6:41 PM


Re: scenario for gasby
So..
If a man and woman have consentual, protected sex.
While outside, in a futuristic car(for pleasure), while smoking a cigarette.
But still get pregnant.
Should they have the baby in a restaurant?
or..
terminate it and have some of the pie that was cooling on crashfrog's window?
sorry.. it's been a long day

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Taz, posted 11-30-2006 6:41 PM Taz has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 62 of 303 (367183)
11-30-2006 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by alacrity fitzhugh
11-30-2006 9:45 AM


Yeah, I agree you have trouble understanding.
Here is were I ask an admin to step in, and warn you. You are in violation of the rules, by attacking me, and not the subject. So now to me, all your thoughts are really invalid. If you can't argue the position, then don't get involved.
I was saying that you missed the point, not that I missed the point, and if I need to point that out, then we really need to step back and re-read the posts, so we can come to a better understanding, or do you just want to argue?
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 understand your point perfectly, and I am saying it has nothing to do with my point, or this thread.
I dare in the same why you dare to use your attempt at using the statement 'many believe the same as I do'.
I pointed that out, not because it makes me right, but because you singled me out. I am just saying I am not alone on this thought process, so stop singling me out.
Any time you state 'I feel' or I believe' Your feelings and believes are in no why paramount on others rights.
Of course not, hence the thread.
I want to disect my thoughts, so that I do not believe in BS.
So far I have heard nothing to really condradict what I believe, and my thought is becoming a fact. Of course you will just see this as stubborn. But don't worry, deep down I always remain open to rationalism and logic.
So you now admit it is none of your business, Good than you know understand the errors of your ways.
What does that have to do with rights?
Get this straight. By this whole process not being a right, is not an attack on anyone, it is truth, plain and simple.
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.
Please don't speak to me like you know me, because you don't. Stick with the topic, and again you should be suspended for attacking me.
Admin please...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 11-30-2006 9:45 AM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 11-30-2006 7:22 PM riVeRraT has replied

alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 4289 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 63 of 303 (367185)
11-30-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by riVeRraT
11-30-2006 7:12 PM


riverrat writes:
alacrity fitzhugh writes:
Yeah, I agree you have trouble understanding.
Here is were I ask an admin to step in, and warn you. You are in violation of the rules, by attacking me, and not the subject. So now to me, all your thoughts are really invalid. If you can't argue the position, then don't get involved.
Sure, then I'll point out why I said you have trouble understanding. I compared seat belt safety to birth control, you took it as comparing seat belts to sex. If the only way you can debate is to misrepresent other posters then run to admin when they point it out that says about your debating skills. I'm through with you anyway since you show you will not debate in good faith.
Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by riVeRraT, posted 11-30-2006 7:12 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by riVeRraT, posted 12-01-2006 10:20 AM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 64 of 303 (367188)
11-30-2006 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
11-30-2006 11:18 AM


Re: Maybe another way to look at it
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)
Woa, take it easy. I think you missed it. You said this:
"that the life of the unborn child depends on the choices the mother makes, so it kinda looks like a right by default."
I asked you what about the man. I want to hear your response before I agree/disagree with you. If you read how this thread got started in the proposed new topics forum, you'll understand why I asked that question better.
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.
I don't think that is off-topic, and may be part of the root of the whole thing. So basically the man has no rights about it? So then why does the woman? They both made it together, how can one have rights, and the other none?
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.
All you did was outline that a woman has a choice to get an abortion. I never denied that. You did nothing to address the topic, which is consentual intercourse AND abortion together. You did not even describe why it is a right, other than stating the obvious, which I already outlined in the op.
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 never said they do not have a right to have an abortion. I said it's not a right. It's a privilage, not a right. I can't see logically how this can be considered a right. I did some studying of all the kinds of rights out there, and it really doesn't follow the spirit of the word "right." Peoples rights to things are for valid reasons that have nothing to do with their mistakes.
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?
Well just for that reason. That there is no gaurantee that a person will not become pregnant while having intercourse, unless you do what I did, and cut your nuts.
Where does it say in life that we are gauranteed sex without risk? Do we have a right to sex without risk? It would be nice, but it's not a reality. So if we don't have a right to sex without risk, then fixing that risk when it happens is not a right either. Your right lies within your choice to have intercourse or not. Once you give up that right to remain without intercourse, then your in for whatever gets thrown your way.
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?
I would be all for having the unborn child have some kind of rights. But of course they would be slightly different, since I feel the safety of the mother comes first over the unborn child. But a mother has every right to things happening to her body. An unborn child is not her body, she created it by her own risk. The unborn child did not ask to be there.
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.
Thanks, I am having fun with it. I am bashing to design and build a plane that I can fold up and take with me to Puerto Rico, and do some filming there. I'll keep you updated in the new hobby thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2006 11:18 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by fallacycop, posted 12-01-2006 12:35 PM riVeRraT has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 303 (367203)
11-30-2006 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by riVeRraT
11-30-2006 9:09 AM


Once you consent to intercourse, you have given up your right to having a thing inside of you.
Based on what reasoning?
I mean is this a right you find in the Constitution, or what? Or is this just your own personal view about sex?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by riVeRraT, posted 11-30-2006 9:09 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by riVeRraT, posted 12-01-2006 10:22 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 66 of 303 (367204)
11-30-2006 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Heathen
11-30-2006 12:29 PM


So.. whose 'will' was involved? was there any free will in this situation?
For the zygote? I'm sorry, I was arguing from the position that the zygote was a person. If it's a person then it has free will, a "soul", etc.
If you now want to argue from a different basis, that's fine, but it only strengthens my case. If what we're talking about here is a willess mass of cells with no capacity for independant action, then how is it morally objectionable to destroy it?
again.. this all revolves around intent on the part of the intruder.
The desire for abortion proves the intent. If their intent was to give birth, they wouldn't be having an abortion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Heathen, posted 11-30-2006 12:29 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Heathen, posted 12-01-2006 10:12 AM crashfrog has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 67 of 303 (367229)
12-01-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Wounded King
11-30-2006 12:05 PM


Re: forced birth???
Yes I agree, but how does that make it a right?
I am sure technology has increased the amount of abortions, so I am not ridiculus.
Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Wounded King, posted 11-30-2006 12:05 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by nator, posted 12-01-2006 4:21 PM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 68 of 303 (367232)
12-01-2006 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taz
11-30-2006 12:42 PM


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.
I read it again, and I agree with you, sort of, but that doesn't explain to me why it is a right, just because people feel like it is. I am looking for a more objective reason.
I do not think that sex is a necessity, even if certian people feel like it is. (I probably come close to being one of those people, but if I am truely honest with myself, I would have to say that sex is not a necessity)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taz, posted 11-30-2006 12:42 PM Taz has not replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 69 of 303 (367234)
12-01-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
11-30-2006 8:55 PM


crashfrog writes:
For the zygote? I'm sorry, I was arguing from the position that the zygote was a person. If it's a person then it has free will
Ok.. so consider that it has free will. How can it act on it's free will? If it 'decides' that it doesn't want to be there what can it do? If it decides that it wants to stay what can it do? Unborn babies react to stimuli, move about when uncomfortable etc etc. (without being able to communicate or enforce its "will") much like a newborn does.
crashfrog writes:
If what we're talking about here is a willess mass of cells with no capacity for independant action
A new born child may have free will, but has no capacity to act on it other than to wave it arms and crap itself.
"will" and "ability to act or communicate that will" are two different things
But we're now heading into the realms of the human/not human debate.
I think RiverRat was naive to expect that it not be a part of this debate.
If the embryo is to be treated as a clump of cells or a vestigal organ that must be removed. then there is absolutely no problem.
If it is to be treated as a person then there are issues.
before you go getting all "hoity-toity" I'm coming down on either side of this. I was originally just pointing out that your analogy with a burglar doesn't really hold here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 11-30-2006 8:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by riVeRraT, posted 12-01-2006 10:31 AM Heathen has not replied
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 12-01-2006 11:50 AM Heathen has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 70 of 303 (367236)
12-01-2006 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Taz
11-30-2006 12:50 PM


Giving up your right
Let's look at it this way.
If a woman gets raped and becomes pregnant, what happens? Her rights are violated.
Her right to not have intercourse against her will, and her right not to get pregnant are both violated.
Now if she willingly consents to intercourse with the known risk of getting pregnant, she now has givin up that right, and accepts all risk involved. If she gets pergnant, while it may be legal to get an abortion, she really has no right to it, because it was a result of something she did by her own free will. She has violated her own right, in a matter of speaking. Play with fire, and you'll get burned.
If I play the lotto, and it is my intent to win the lotto, and I lose, do I have a right to go back and win it?
I have no right to win it, or do I have a right to get my dollar back. If I got my dollar back, it would be a privilage, not a right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Taz, posted 11-30-2006 12:50 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 12-01-2006 11:55 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 71 of 303 (367240)
12-01-2006 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by alacrity fitzhugh
11-30-2006 7:22 PM


I'm through with you anyway since you show you will not debate in good faith.
I was already through with you when you insulted me. I've been in here a long time, and I have no time to put up with insults. I understood your comparison perfectly. You just won't accept that it doesn't apply. So you result to insults. If you cannot debate without resulting to insults, then you really don't have a right to be in here. The rules are in place for a reason. If you don't like them, then you can leave. I think an apology is in order, at least. We don't have to agree to get along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 11-30-2006 7:22 PM alacrity fitzhugh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 12-01-2006 3:27 PM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 72 of 303 (367241)
12-01-2006 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
11-30-2006 8:47 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 11-30-2006 8:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 73 of 303 (367243)
12-01-2006 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Heathen
12-01-2006 10:12 AM


I think RiverRat was naive to expect that it not be a part of this debate.
It is not really necessary to include that, to come up with an answer.
crashfrog writes:
The desire for abortion proves the intent. If their intent was to give birth, they wouldn't be having an abortion.
That can never really be an intent. The most one could logically hope for is to have sex, and beat the odds of getting pregnant. One could never expect it to be fullproof that one won't get pregnant from having intercourse. So intent is out the window. Once you have intercourse, you enter into the risk zone.
I mean if I jump off a cliff, and hurt myself, is it my right to get health care? Does someone have to help me off the ground? No, I am lucky if I get help, and if I survive. Once I made a decision to jump off the cliff, I commited to the consequences, and gave up my rights to be healthy.
Same goes if I wear a seatbelt, smoke cigarettes, enter crashes house through the open window, and resist the urge to eat a slice of pie as I enter, play lotto, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Heathen, posted 12-01-2006 10:12 AM Heathen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Taz, posted 12-01-2006 11:45 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 88 by nator, posted 12-01-2006 4:24 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 74 of 303 (367247)
12-01-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by riVeRraT
12-01-2006 10:31 AM


riverrat writes:
I mean if I jump off a cliff, and hurt myself, is it my right to get health care? Does someone have to help me off the ground? No, I am lucky if I get help, and if I survive. Once I made a decision to jump off the cliff, I commited to the consequences, and gave up my rights to be healthy.
Actually, if you jump off a cliff and the medical professionals know about it, they have to help you. This is why people who attempt to commit suicide have the right to be helped, and in most cases they do get help.

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by riVeRraT, posted 12-01-2006 10:31 AM riVeRraT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 303 (367249)
12-01-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Heathen
12-01-2006 10:12 AM


Ok.. so consider that it has free will. How can it act on it's free will? If it 'decides' that it doesn't want to be there what can it do? If it decides that it wants to stay what can it do? Unborn babies react to stimuli, move about when uncomfortable etc etc.
So they're really more like animals, then. Not making moral choices or taking informed action about their world; but rather, simply reacting unintelligently and without consciousness or forsight.
I still don't see how it becomes a moral wrong to destroy that life. Particularly when its presence is harmful and unwanted.
I was originally just pointing out that your analogy with a burglar doesn't really hold here.
If it's a human with every identical right as a fully-fledged adult, as is often put forth, then it's also a human with responsibilities that can be held accountable for its actions.
If it isn't then there's no basis for asserting there's a moral harm in its destruction. If what we're talking about has the mind of an animal, takes the actions of an animal, then what we're talking about is an animal, and there's no moral objection to destroying unwanted and potentially harmful animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Heathen, posted 12-01-2006 10:12 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Heathen, posted 12-01-2006 12:39 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 94 by riVeRraT, posted 12-02-2006 8:40 AM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024