Human Rights

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? I understand your point perfectly, and I am saying it has nothing to do with my point, or this thread. 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. 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. 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. 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...

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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

see Message 70

It is not really necessary to include that, to come up with an answer. 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.

We are not talking about morals here.I have discussions with some liberals as to just how important all life is here on this planet, every living thing. They would find it morally wrong to go fishing, yet not have a rpoblem with abortion, so.....

What??? That comparison is the worst one by far. You should have said if a woman chooses to drive a car, and gets into an accident, and the seatbelt fails, does she have a right to medical treatment.I say, if someone is in iminent danger, and can be fixed from their injuries, then they should be helped. But a normal healthy pregnancy is not an injury.But whether she has a right to it, can be looked at differently. Why was she driving? For fun, or for need? If it was just for fun, then she took that risk of driving a car.Just like if I started riding motorcycles, I increase my risk. I know this, and I have no one to really complain too if I get into an accident, and it is completely my fault, and I was just driving around for fun. I don't really have a right to be healthy again, I have the privilage based on how good the medical treatment is for my injuries. Again, I do not see a healthy pregnancy comparible to an injury. Women can have babies and have perfectly healthy lives, maybe even more healthy, as breast feeding can help prevent breast cancer. If I cut my arm off in a motorcycle accident, it will never be healthy again without medical treatment. So there is a big difference when comapring the two, and it is not as black and white as you make it out to be. No you do get to take action, according to our current society and medical advancments. That has little to do with whether it is a right or not. See your missing the point.

I think Message 70 explains it pretty clearly, and no one has challenged what I said about a womans rights being violated if she gets raped and inpregnated.Tell me, what right was violated?

And most woman cannot/won't get an abortion unless a doctor does it.So what happens when it becomes medically possible to support a zygotes life until it doesn't need support anymore?What about neonatal babies? Should we go around disconnecting all their life support systems, based on the premise that they cannot survive on their own, so they deserve to not have a chance at life?

Isn't there a difference between can't pay, and won't pay?A woman doesn't get an abortion because she can't carry out the term. (well some do, and thats ok to me)

That is correct. She had the right to control her own body before commiting to intercourse. After she gets pregnant, she has the privilage of getting an abortion, not a "right."I'll ask you, what rights of a woman get violated if a man rapes her, and impregnates her?Also, I thought we determined that a zygote is not part of her body. A right to be pregnant or not? Can a woman make herself preganant at will?
Can she control anything about it, other than just taking the chance of getting pregnant? Isn't the rest up to nature?If a woman has complete control over her womb, then there are a lot of woman who desire to be pregnant, but can't be. Do they have a right to be pregnant?

But that's the root of it. Am I forcing a woman to have sex? To get pregnant? No, so I am not forcing her to have an aboprtion, or to carry to term.The womans wishes were already determined once she AND the man consent to intercourse, I or anyone else has litlle to do with it.You make it seem like it's our fault that woman get pregnant, who don't want to be, and that is BS. I'm calling BS on that one schraf, you'll have to do better.