Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
48 online now:
jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,011 Year: 9,759/23,288 Month: 774/1,544 Week: 166/322 Day: 20/66 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Rights
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 23 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 responded

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

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 77 of 303 (367256)
12-01-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by riVeRraT
11-30-2006 7:39 PM


Re: Maybe another way to look at it
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.

This whole thread orbits this point. But that fluff holds no water. You haven`t been able to support your point. People have the right to do whatever they want, unless there is some over-riding reason. Instead of asking us why sex+abortion is a right, you should be presenting us some over-riding reason why they might not be a right. You have not done that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by riVeRraT, posted 11-30-2006 7:39 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by riVeRraT, posted 12-02-2006 8:52 AM fallacycop has not yet responded

Heathen
Member
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 78 of 303 (367258)
12-01-2006 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
12-01-2006 11:50 AM


crashfrog writes:

without consciousness


That's not what I said

crashfrog writes:

I still don't see how it becomes a moral wrong to destroy that life


I feel it's morally wrong to destroy an animals life.

crashfrog writes:

Particularly when its presence is harmful


RiverRat has stated stated that he felt that was an exception along with rape, for the purposes of this dicussion.. (at least he did in the PNT). Regardless.. not all pregnancies are harmful.

crashfrog writes:

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.

So.. what exactly do you see as being the difference between a late term foetus, and a newborn baby?

Both are fully dependant on a 'parent'
Both cannot really exert their will or communicate their wishes.
Both are living.

This is where I have problems with this issue.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 12-01-2006 11:50 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 12-01-2006 12:46 PM Heathen has responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 23 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 responded

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

Heathen
Member
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 80 of 303 (367271)
12-01-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
12-01-2006 12:46 PM


crashfrog writes:

Plants, too? Insects? I'm just curious how far vegetarianism goes.


that's an entirely different discussion

crashfrog writes:

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.


But the woman/man involved are responsible (through their intercourse) for that 'human being' being there. therefore I see it as their responsibility to ensure the welfare of that 'human being'

If you get me in a situation (intentionally or by accident) whereby i am dependant on your actions for my survival. Is it moral for you to ignore my welfare? given that I wouldn't be in this situation if it weren't for you?

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.

crashfrog writes:

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.


I'm not sure that I said the zygote is a 'fully fledged' human (whatever that is). but I certainly don't think it is responsible for its own existance in any way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 12-01-2006 12:46 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by fallacycop, posted 12-01-2006 1:37 PM Heathen has not yet responded
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 12-01-2006 1:47 PM Heathen has responded

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 81 of 303 (367272)
12-01-2006 1:37 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.
But still one could not be forced to donate a kidny to save the other. Besides, and more importantly for the case of the womb renter, the fetus would have to have personhood status which is, off couse, an essential part of the discussion...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Heathen, posted 12-01-2006 1:28 PM Heathen has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 23 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 responded

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

Heathen
Member
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 83 of 303 (367292)
12-01-2006 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
12-01-2006 1:47 PM


{ABE:
crashfrog writes:

I'm not the one who's obligated to perform the surgeries, etc.


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?}

Financial or moral... you have a responsibility to do whatever you can to help me seeing as you put me in this position.
admittedly I would draw the line at endangering your own life.

crashfrog writes:

and perhaps people like me who disagree with your position entirely


I'm not sure I have a definite 'position' to disagree with

crashfrog writes:

leech off her body's resources.


I would suggest that very few, if any, abortions were carried out as a result of a womans fear for her bodies 'resources'. except in life threatening situations.

Edited by Creavolution, : inital paragraph added to

Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 12-01-2006 1:47 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 12-01-2006 6:48 PM Heathen has responded

alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 2845 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 84 of 303 (367307)
12-01-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by riVeRraT
12-01-2006 10:20 AM


riverrat writes:

I was already through with you when you insulted me.

Show me where I insulted you, I posted you have trouble understanding. Seeing as how I compared birth control safety to seat belt safety not the act of intercourse, then you took it that I was comparing seat belts to sex is you misunderstanding.

riverrat writes:

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.

No you do not understand, to say I insulted you, then you prove I'm right in the stating you are having trouble understanding

riverrat writes:

So you result to insults.

You either purposely take peoples positions out of context, or you are having trouble understanding.

riverrat writes:

If you cannot debate without resulting to insults, then you really don't have a right to be in here.

First, you saying I insulted you does not fly in face of the evidence, second I have been here longer than you and know this little statement
that you made is not for you to decide.

riverrat writes:

I think an apology is in order, at least. We don't have to agree to get along.

You first.

riverrat writes:


The rules are in place for a reason. If you don't like them, then you can leave.

You should heed your own words.


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 71 by riVeRraT, posted 12-01-2006 10:20 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by AdminPD, posted 12-01-2006 4:45 PM alacrity fitzhugh has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 85 of 303 (367312)
12-01-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
11-29-2006 7:46 PM


quote:
So basically it's anything you say, goes? Shraff, it's my house - I have no right to kill anyone in it.

Do you have the right to, say, have a benign tumor removed from your body?

quote:
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.

No, semantics/definitions are not irrelevant at all.

Definitions are, in fact, the crux of the argument.

At one end of the spectrum, we have a fertilized egg.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have a living full-term baby that has been born.

Are you saying that a fertilized egg is exactly the same as a newborn infant?

If not, why not?

quote:
why shouldn't it have rights?

Because it isn't a person.

But you never answered the question, mike;

Who owns the womb?

The woman or "it"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 11-29-2006 7:46 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 86 of 303 (367316)
12-01-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by riVeRraT
11-30-2006 8:51 AM


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

quote:
ABSOLUTELY !!!!
That is why you can decline intercourse.

So, that means that you think that if a woman has sex and gets pregnant, she no longer has the right to control her own body?

As soon as she becomes pregnant, she no longer has any say over what happens in her uterus, according to you.

Is that correct?

quote:
A zygote is not part of the woman’s body.

No, but her uterus is part of her body.

Again, are you saying that once the egg is fertilized in her fallopian tube or the zygote implants in her uterus, she no longer has the right to control her own fallopian tubes or uterus?

Are you saying that once that fertilized egg gets in there, it has all the rights and the woman has none?

quote:
There is a large difference between chopping off your leg, and having an abortion.

Yes. I fail to understand why this is relevant.

quote:
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.

No, it's a right to have sex or not, and it is a right to be pregnant or not.

(It would really help if you could restrain yourself from using such overwrought, hysterical language.)

quote:
Zygotes do not "take up residence" like some kind of unwanted tumor.

Er, yeah, that's pretty much exactly what they do.

We are, by definition, talking about unwanted pregnancies here, aren't we?

quote:
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.

LOL! Yeah, and where is this "perfect planet" where all women have "perfect control" over their bodies and what happens with them at all time?

Birth control fails, rat. People make poor decisions about sex sometimes.

The risk of getting pregnant is there, even if both partners are surgically sterilized, even if it is very small.

Do you seriously think that it's reasonable to require, say, a married couple (one of whom is sterilized) who don't want or shouldn't have (due to health reasons) any more children to never, ever have intercourse again?

quote:
Zygotes do not ask to be put there

Nope. Zygotes don't ask for anything, seeing as they aren't people. But they can be removed if the woman so wishes.

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

quote:
Stay on topic, I strictly asked that we not discuss when life begins.
We are talking about rights, not life.

But when the zygote becomes a "person" is the basis of mike's argument. He is saying, essentially, that the moment a woman becomes pregnant, she gives up the right to control her own body because the zygote is a "person".

If neither you nor he are willing to say when the zygote is a person, then you have no argument to stand on.

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

quote:
The woman, the woman. She has the right to consent to intercourse.

But what happens to her "ownership" of her uterus as soon as the zygote gets there?

Does she cease to own her own uterus at that moment?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by riVeRraT, posted 11-30-2006 8:51 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by riVeRraT, posted 12-02-2006 9:05 AM nator has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 303 (367321)
12-01-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by riVeRraT
12-01-2006 10:01 AM


Re: forced birth???
quote:
I am sure technology has increased the amount of abortions, so I am not ridiculus.

Why are you sure?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by riVeRraT, posted 12-01-2006 10:01 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 726 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 88 of 303 (367323)
12-01-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by riVeRraT
12-01-2006 10:31 AM


quote:
I mean if I jump off a cliff, and hurt myself, is it my right to get health care?

Yes, of course it is.


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

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 89 of 303 (367329)
12-01-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by alacrity fitzhugh
12-01-2006 3:27 PM


Warning - Stick to the Topic
alacrity fitzhugh and riVeRraT:

Please stick to discussing the topic, not slights.

alacrity fitzhugh, please argue the position, not the person.

Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.

Thank you Purple


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 12-01-2006 3:27 PM alacrity fitzhugh has not yet responded

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 23 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 responded

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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020