Human Rights

Hi rat,Do you have an explanation for why consenting to sex and pregnancy makes abortion NOT a right?

That's exactly what he said: Women don't control their uteruses because if they did, they wouldn't need a doctor to perform the abortion. You mean, is liberty the heart of the liberal attitude? That people should be free to do those things that we don't have a really good reason to prevent them from doing?Yeah, that's exactly it. It's called "freedom". It means that you don't have to justify the things you want to do; rather, the people that want to prevent you from doing them need to justify their position. It's why the Bill of Rights is not a document outlining what you're allowed to do, it's a document outlining what the government can't prevent you from doing.Freedom. Yeah, I can see how it would be a scary thing to you, Riverrat, but I'm not about to apologize or defend my view that people should be basically free. Maybe you'd care to explain how it is that you're able to know better than everybody else what they should be allowed to do?

It is very clear as to why this thread started, maybe you should go back to the op. I was going to say:"Yes, to inquire otherwise would be a violation of rights. It is a good point you made about it."But then again, anytime I have been in the hospital, I have always been asked, how did I get the injury. If a child comes into a hospital with bruises all over is body, wouldn't there be some kind of inquiry to as how it happened?

I didn't see this one. Most likely, yes. But when she was typing about have 100% control over it, IIRC, she was wrong. Now you are just re-equivocating....That's not the point I was trying to make, that the women didn't own the uterus, it was that they don't have full control over it. Yup, thats why I see abortion as a right until someone can suggest why it shouldn't be one. RR, you got that explanation?

You're still equivocating, because that's not the kind of control Schraf was referring to (and you know it, obviously.)

What does that have to do with anything?

I didn't say the doctor owns the womb, I said that women didn't really have control over it.
How does that turn into the doctor owning the womb, well actually, uterus was the word we were using.

To tell you the truth, I don't know if it is actually right or not. I don't know how we got here for sure, and no-one else can prove it. So until we figure out who gave us this privilage of life, then I can't give a qualified answer to that. Plus, I am not a woman. But for now, I think it should be allowed, but I do not recommend it in the context of the op. I feel like we live in a society the places sex ahead of giving birth to life.

Because you're equivocating on the term "control." We're not talking about whether or not women can cause an abortion by force of will; we're talking about whether or not it's their decision to make in regards to having the abortion.That's the control, making the decision. How they implement the decision is irrelevant, women have complete control over their uteruses because they can make the decision to abort and then go have an abortion. Before I realized you were equivocating and being disingenuous, I assumed you were using the same understanding of "control" as the rest of us. I see that I was mistaken - you were being a lot less honest than I gave you credit for. My bad, I guess.

Well then you should consider it a right until you have reasons for it to not be a right. So you're not going to argue about abortion anymore until we figure out who gave us life? I doubt it Well, personally, I'd rather have sex than give birth. Is that what you mean by 'placing ahead'? If not, what did you mean?

Riverrat, nobody's recommended abortion. (If it can be avoided, it should be; as a surgical procedure it comes with risks.) You need to understand, as the rest of us do, the difference between supporting someone's decision and agreeing with it.

I covered that. I understand that I equivocated, but that is because I was responding to Schraf and that's the only way she can argue. I did un-equivocate and make the actual point I was trying to make in that post. The point was that if a women wanted to use her uterus to infringe upon the rights of another person, then she would not have a right to do that. And that because there are things that she would not be allowed to do with her uterus, then she doesn NOT have complete control over it. I also said, for example, that if the unborn baby was considered a person then she would not have the right to infringe on that persons right to life and so she wouldn't have complete control over her uterus. Only becuase of the person I was responding to. But I stopped being dishonest, in the same post, to make an honest point, that I re-made here, for you.

...wha? That doesn't make a lick of sense. You have to be dishonest, because that's the only way you can argue with Schraf? That sort of proves her point, doesn't it? ...wha? What the hell are you talking about, here? "Using her uterus to infringe on the rights of another person"? What do you think uteruses are, CS? Do you understand what we're talking about when we say "uterus"? You are aware that a uterus is an internal organ, right? She wouldn't be infringing on the fetus's right to life - she would simply be excercising control of her uterus and what humans are allowed to live there. There's no infringement of rights because, while the fetus may have a right to live, it certainly doesn't have the right to live inside an unwilling person's uterus. I mean, show me in the Constitution where that right exists. Show me from what basis a fetus's rights include the right to take over an organ belonging to another person. Necessity? That's insufficent. Just because you need something doesn't mean somebody else is obligated to give it to you.

Let's just drop this. Her point was that abortion was a right because she owned her uterus and had complete control over it so she had the right to do whatever she wanted with it.My point was that having control over her uterus is not what makes abortion a right, IMHO, because we could think of things that she doesn't have the right to with her uterus, and show that she doesn't have complete control over it. Hey ass, can I talk to the new-and-improved crashfrog that isn't so offensive? What ever happened to that guy anyways? I remeber talking with him some months back...maybe he got bored Well, for one, there is more to it than just the uterus. But I think that I could imagesome scenarios where a women used her uterus to infringe upon the rights of another person. It also gets to the point that if the unborn baby was considered a person... And this gets to RR's argument. That when she consents to sex she is consenting to the possibility of getting pregnant and waives her right to decide what humans are allowed to live in there. I think the right to life should be pretty high up on the list but I certainly wouldn't advocate forcing a women to give birth if she really didn't want to. I can't. Can you show me where in the constitution it says that women get to decide who lives in their uterus? I mean, which part are you talking about here? Yes, but the women set up the situation so that the baby would be need her to survive.Its kinda like the Saw movies where the killer puts the peron in a sitauation where they will die if they don't save themselves. He wasn't actually killing the person.What I mean is that the baby was created by the actions of the parents and now has needs of the womens organs. I think that becuase the woman (and man too) put the baby in that situation, they are obligated to provide it with its needs.Like in your house anology upthread. If you invite someone into your house and it is set up so that once they enter if they leave then they die, you would be obligated, IMHO, to let them stay in your house by their right to life and if you forced them to leave you'd be killing them.I think you're reply was something along the lines of "Fuck 'em".

I'm letting post rest for a while. The signal to noise ratio has become a real issue.

---