|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Human Rights | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Then anything she decides to do with it and anything that goes on with it is under her control, 100%, right? quote: You seem to be making a disingenuous semantic argument. By your logic, because you cannot tattoo yourself with a picture of a suffering, crown of thorns-bedecked face of Jesus between your shoulder blades, you don't control your skin.
quote: Give me an example of something that I do not have the right to do with my uterus other than have an abortion?
Wait, I thought that the woman had control of her uterus, which presumably means that anything that goes on within it is under her control. quote: Again, this seems to be a disingenuous semantic argument. I was using the word "control" as an equivalent to "own". I am hard pressed to think that you don't fully understand this. Tell me, are there any parts of your body that you don't own, 100%?
quote: Sort of. It is because they have the right to body autonomy and privacy.
quote: The former, I'd say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: CS, I've been trying to get Rat to answer this question for 200 posts, and he has yet to do so. Don't hold your breath.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: In another abortion thread, rat actually blamed the fact that abortion was legal for his having his girlfriend get an abortion. He made it clear that he would have preferred that the government had not even given him the choice of abortion. He seemed to be resentful of the fact that he and his girlfrinend were "forced" to be responsible for making the choice themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I remember him saying that.
He made it clear that he would have preferred that the government had not even given him the choice of abortion. Of course, the most amazing thing is - the government didn't give him the choice at all. He took that choice from a woman. What I can't understand is how he fails to see that the answer here is not to take away every other woman's choice, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
CS, I've been trying to get Rat to answer this question for 200 posts, and he has yet to do so. Don't hold your breath. You need to rephrase that, to even though rat has answer this question, I do not agree. I have another question for you. You say a aoman has control over her wonb, and presumably the being inside. Is that because she created it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
In another abortion thread, rat actually blamed the fact that abortion was legal for his having his girlfriend get an abortion. Your like a POS, I tell you.I expressed several times in that thread too that the blame was not entirely the governments fault, but clearly the ability to choose an abortion makes them an accomplice. I am going to take all mis-quote from you now, as a persoanl attack on my character. another BS statement:
He seemed to be resentful of the fact that he and his girlfrinend were "forced" to be responsible for making the choice themselves. Again, this is all attacks on the person, I am sick of it.If you can't quote me correctly, then you must be incapable of understanding anything on this board.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Of course, the most amazing thing is - the government didn't give him the choice at all. He took that choice from a woman. I told you already it was a mutual decision. And yes the government allowed us to choose, they told us it was ok, by making it legal. My liberal mother told me it was ok, because of her liberal belief's.With all the information at hand, it seemed like an ok thing to do, until about a second after it happened. You also need to stop mis-quoting me, I am taking all this as personal attacks on me.
What I can't understand is how he fails to see that the answer here is not to take away every other woman's choice, too. What I can't understand is that even though I made it clear several hundred times that this thread is not about taking away anything from anyone, it's about calling it what it is. I expressed that I do not completely know if it is right or wrong, yet you choose to ignore that fact, and continue to insult me. This is BS crash, stop the shit. You are a horrible debater. Dealt with lies and insults, how can anyone accept anything you say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No. It's because she has the final say over what happens to her body.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I told you already it was a mutual decision. I'm sure that you feel that it was. A pity she's not here to speak on her behalf. Do you believe that you're making a "mutual decision" when you've determined that no woman anywhere should have an abortion?
What I can't understand is that even though I made it clear several hundred times that this thread is not about taking away anything from anyone, it's about calling it what it is. A choice. That's the only thing that it is. If you believe differently, then explain to me what use it is for you to say that women don't have the right to an abortion? Is this just supposed to be an academic discussion, or are you that intent on having it both ways? That you get to advocate a position without having to address its consequences?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No it doesn't. Is it the government's fault that credit cards are legal, since lots of people go into bankruptcy because they legally chose to run up large credit card bills? Or, are people responsible for their own choice to get credit cards and spend beyond their means to repay? Even though there are many who do use credit responsibly, should the government remove all access to credit cards for everyone because some people can't help themselves? Is it the government's fault that people are alcoholics, because it's the government that has legalized the sale of alcoholic beverages? Or, are people responsible for their own choice to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages? Even though there are many people who drink responsibly, should the US reinstitute prohibition of alcohol because some people can't help themselves? Is it the government's fault that many thousands of people die in automobile accidents every year, becasue the government allows people to purchase and drive automobiles? Or, are people responsible for their own choice to purchase, maintain, and drive an automobile? Even though there are many people who drive responsibly, should the government stop allowing the purchase and operation of automobiles for everyone, just because there are some who can't seem to drive safely?
quote: It did nothing of the sort. There are lots of things that are legal that I would never do because I don't think they are OK things to do. What, are you dependant upon the government to tell you what your morals are? Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: So, where is it written that you get to be the final arbiter of "what it is"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
First off, I think it is inappropriate for you and Schraff to be discussing Rat's personal opinions from another thread. You should be debating the position, not the person, remember?
Do you believe that you're making a "mutual decision" when you've determined that no woman anywhere should have an abortion? He's not advocating that. He's just saying it shouldn't be considered a right but they should still be able to get them.
If you believe differently, then explain to me what use it is for you to say that women don't have the right to an abortion? It stemmed from a different discussion where someone's reply was that aboriton was a women's right. Crash, you do not have the right do drive a car. Now, am I stating that nobody anywhere should drive a car? By your logic I am. Its just not true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS, I've been trying to get Rat to answer this question for 200 posts, and he has yet to do so. Don't hold your breath. You need to rephrase that, to even though rat has answer this question, I do not agree
I haven't read the explanation I was asking for. Are you refering to Message 70?
RR in msg 70 writes: 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. My question is: How/Why does consenting to intercourse by her own free will (by which she gives up her right to not have sex and not get pregnant) make it NOT a right to get an abortion? How or why does doing it by her own free will remove the right? That is what I don't understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
First off, I think it is inappropriate for you and Schraff to be discussing Rat's personal opinions from another thread. He made them part of this discussion, not us.
You should be debating the position, not the person, remember? Indeed. Thanks to others, the position became "Crash doesn't understand RR's position." I was simply rebutting that nonsense by showing how I completely understand RR's motivations and positions.
Crash, you do not have the right do drive a car. I do, actually, because I have all rights not specifically disallowed. Your position is that I have no rights not specifically granted, but that position is incorrect and anathema to liberty. Humans are inherently free, not inherently unfree; thus, humans have all rights not specifically disallowed. (You can drive a car without a license, by the way - you just can't drive it on a public street. That's what the license is - your certification to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You seem to be making a disingenuous semantic argument. Yeah, I've already admitted that. It was on purpose because that's about the only arguments I ever see you make.
Give me an example of something that I do not have the right to do with my uterus other than have an abortion? I don't have an example right now. If you could think of a way to use your uterus to infringe upon the rights of another person, then I would say that you do not have the right to do that with your uterus.
quote: The former, I'd say.
So if everything is a right by default, until we have a reason for it not to be a right, then why come up with reasons for it to be a right when no reason has been brought for it NOT to be a right?
quote: Sort of. It is because they have the right to body autonomy and privacy.
But that just moves it back to, if you used your body autonomy and privacy to infringe upon the rights of another person then you don't have a right to do that. Trying to come up with reason for something to be a right is unneccessary until there is a reason for it not to be a right. Also, do you agree that no right can be used to remove rights from another person? And if it is then it is no longer a right in that manner? I think abortion is moraly wrong, for obvious reasons. Now, I also consider a 8.5 month unborn child to be a person and that abortion is removing that persons right to live (even though the mother has body autonomy and privacy she should not be able to use those to take the unborn persons life [remove another persons rights]). I don't see a 0.5 month unborn child as a person so I don't see any reason that abortion should not be allowed other than for moral reasons. I have no idea when, between that 0.5 and 8.5 timeframe, the unborn child becomes a person so I don't know when abortions should be stopped (it would probably be better to go by trimesters). So, I think abortion should be legal and let the individual women decide if she wants to murder her unborn child or remove an unwanted clump of cells although I think its all morally wrong. Until we can decide at what point it ACTUALLY becomes a person with rights (which is at birth, leagally IIRC) we don't know when the persons right to life is being violated.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024