Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Rights
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 303 (366839)
11-29-2006 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
11-29-2006 1:26 PM


But the combination of the two events, consensual intercourse, and abortion together, I feel is just not a right, and I would like to hear arguments as to why it is.
Nobody has a right to demand tenancy inside of another human being against their will, just as you don't have a right to live inside someone else's private property if they don't want you to.
It doesn't matter how you got in in the first place. If I invite you over to my house for pizza, I can still demand that you leave. Just because I invited you over for the night doesn't mean you get to stay for months. It doesn't matter if you don't have any other place to go.
A starving child has a right to food.
No, actually, he or she doesn't. Just because you believe you have need of something I have, doesn't mean you get to take it from me against my will. I might be a bad person for witholding food from a starving person, but if they put me in an armlock and take it from me, they're still a thief.
There's a reason that we can't simply go around abducting people and harvesting their organs to help those who need them. People have soverignty over their own bodies. It's the second most fundamental right. Another's need does not produce a legal obligation on anybody else.
Why is it a right for both a man and a woman to have consensual sex, AND get an abortion?
Why is it a right for both a man and a woman to eat a hamburger, AND drink a diet soda? The reason people have a right to consent to intercourse, and withhold consent to being pregnant, is the same reason they have the right to do anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 11-29-2006 1:26 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2006 2:29 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 16 by riVeRraT, posted 11-29-2006 5:54 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 303 (366855)
11-29-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
11-29-2006 2:29 PM


What if kicking them out of your house ensues their death?
Too bad for them. Not my problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2006 2:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2006 2:38 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 24 by Heathen, posted 11-29-2006 6:59 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 303 (366859)
11-29-2006 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
11-29-2006 2:38 PM


That's mean.
No question. But it's meaner still to tell people they have to have unwanted roommates, or a forced birth, just because somebody believes they need to do that.
It basically comes down to whether or not life is more important than freedom. Of course, everybody dies eventually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2006 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2006 3:12 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 11-29-2006 5:55 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 303 (366872)
11-29-2006 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
11-29-2006 3:12 PM


Which is less mean than kicking someone out who you invited over knowing that when they leave they'll die.
Only if you think freedom and self-determination are valueless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2006 3:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-29-2006 3:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 303 (366955)
11-29-2006 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by riVeRraT
11-29-2006 5:54 PM


Of course it does.
No, it doesn't.
Yea, but I have a choice whether I want to come over or not, and if I leave, I won't be dead.
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.
So basically the man has nothing to do with it?
With her uterus? Yeah, he has nothing to do with it.
People cannot do whatever they please in this life.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by riVeRraT, posted 11-29-2006 5:54 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by riVeRraT, posted 11-30-2006 8:59 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 303 (366956)
11-29-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by riVeRraT
11-29-2006 5:55 PM


Re: forced birth???
How is it forced, if the person willingly has sex?
Because consent for sex is not consent for pregnancy. Those are two different things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 11-29-2006 5:55 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by riVeRraT, posted 11-30-2006 9:04 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 303 (366958)
11-29-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Heathen
11-29-2006 6:59 PM


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 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Heathen, posted 11-29-2006 6:59 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by riVeRraT, posted 11-30-2006 9:09 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 51 by Heathen, posted 11-30-2006 12:29 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 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 1466 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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 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

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 303 (367251)
12-01-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by riVeRraT
12-01-2006 10:16 AM


Re: Giving up your right
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.
Why? See, that's what I asked you before, and all you've done is repeat that.
If a woman chooses to drive a car, knowing that there's always the risk of a crash, does she give up her right to have a seatbelt? Have an airbag? Have paramedics arrive and treat her in the case of a crash?
No. Merely accepting a level of risk doesn't mean you don't get to take actions, like abortion, when your number comes up and you find yourself in the situation you had hoped to avoid. When that happens you still get to take steps to mitigate the unwanted consequences. I'm sure you don't go around telling paramedics they can't respond to car accidents simply because the drivers "accepted the risk."
Play with fire, and you'll get burned.
Even burn victims get to mitigate the consequences of their actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by riVeRraT, posted 12-01-2006 10:16 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by riVeRraT, posted 12-02-2006 8:49 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 303 (367259)
12-01-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Heathen
12-01-2006 12:39 PM


I feel it's morally wrong to destroy an animals life.
Plants, too? Insects? I'm just curious how far vegetarianism goes.
Regardless.. not all pregnancies are harmful.
They all can be, though.
So.. what exactly do you see as being the difference between a late term foetus, and a newborn baby?
The responsibilities necessary to preserve the life of a newborn can be passed along to another person. The responsibilities necessary to preserve the life of a fetus or zygote cannot. (Not yet, anyway.)
That's the pretty big difference, for me. You can't get a fetus or zygote out of a uterus without its death. It's a sad biological fact, but it doesn't place any onus on the woman to meet those responsibilities if she opts not to allow another human being to reside inside of her and leach nourishment from her body at a potential risk to her health.
Does the newborn have responsibilities? can it be held accountable for its actions? or, is it ok to terminate it if you decide it's unwanted?
Either/or, it necessitates the conclusion that abortion is an option women must be allowed to have. You can't say that the zygote is a fully-fledged human, but then deny it has any responsibilities vis-a-vis its trespassing on another human's body.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Heathen, posted 12-01-2006 12:39 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Heathen, posted 12-01-2006 1:28 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 97 by riVeRraT, posted 12-02-2006 8:55 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 303 (367273)
12-01-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Heathen
12-01-2006 1:28 PM


for example.. you drive into in your car, an inquest shows that although unintentional, you are at fault. I now depend on your insurance or your money to pay for my life saving hospital operation.
By your logic, you have absolutely no responsibility to ensure my welfare.
It used to be, I didn't, and you were shit out of luck if I didn't have the resources at hand to pay for your care. Now the law mandates that a driver has to be insured. (Good idea.)
But what you're talking about is financial responsibility, not moral responsibility. I'm not the one who's obligated to perform the surgeries, etc. I'm simply obligated to pay for it since it was my fault. Of course, if I can't pay, then you're not going to get any money except from your own insurance.
What you're talking about is a financial arrangement. I'm not obligated to provide you with my kidney or liver, for instance, even though it was my fault that you need new ones. Even my legal responsibility to fixing the results of my poor judgment (or whatever) don't extend so far as to violate my own body sovereignty. Even my moral responsibility doesn't give you the right to take those organs from me, against my will.
So we make women who want abortions have to pay for them (and perhaps people like me who disagree with your position entirely set up charities to help those who can't.) Oh, wait, that's what we have already. But the parent's responsibility for creating life, to accept that phrasing for a moment, still doesn't extend so far as to mandate that the woman must allow another human to reside within her and leech off her body's resources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Heathen, posted 12-01-2006 1:28 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Heathen, posted 12-01-2006 2:43 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 98 by riVeRraT, posted 12-02-2006 8:57 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 303 (367363)
12-01-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Heathen
12-01-2006 2:43 PM


If you had the skills, and if in fact you were the ONLY person who had the required skills, do you not feel you would be obligated to use them to save my life?
Yeah, because you're a fellow mind; an adult of independent will and experience. A unique individual, fully human.
I don't consider any of those things to be true about zygotes, but I do consider them to be true about those who might find themselves in the position to host a zygote that they don't want, which is why I come down firmly against forced birth. When I see the rights of an adult woman (or, god forbid, a child) set against the rights of some cells; against the rights of a living organism completely incapable of thought or will, nor capable even of feeling anything but the most transient of experiences - that's not a difficult moral calculus for me to solve. The tragedy of a woman forced into giving birth far, far outweighs the destruction of a being completely incapable of experience.
admittedly I would draw the line at endangering your own life.
How much danger are we talking about?
I would suggest that very few, if any, abortions were carried out as a result of a womans fear for her bodies 'resources'.
That's happening, though. In every case, the zygote is drawing nourishment via its antagonistic relationship at the placenta/uterine interface. (The more you study the biology of this, the more you can see that the relationship of embryo to mother is truly an antagonistic one.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Heathen, posted 12-01-2006 2:43 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by nator, posted 12-01-2006 7:35 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 93 by Heathen, posted 12-02-2006 12:19 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 303 (367368)
12-01-2006 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by nator
12-01-2006 7:35 PM


You know, that phrase you just used struck a chord with me.
It's the language they use on sites like WordPress › ReadMe, and I think it's completely accurate. The whole issue is about forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by nator, posted 12-01-2006 7:35 PM nator 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