Human Rights

quote:

---

Wrong. If that were true then she wouldn't need the doctors to do the abortion, she could just do it herself (well, admittedly, she could do a sidewalk belly-flop, or something, but thats not 'going on' with the uterus).

---

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:

---

Even if that is what ownership means, its still not 100% because you can't infringe upon the rights of others. If the unborn baby was considered a person, then even thought the woman owns her uterus, she couldn't infringe upon the unborn baby's right to life. Now, I realize that the baby is not consider a person, but there are presumably things that you do not have the right to do with your uterus even though you own it so it isn't 100%. How do we know that abortion doesn't fall under one of those things?

---

Give me an example of something that I do not have the right to do with my uterus other than have an abortion?

quote:

---

So the next time my girlfriend has cramps I can call bullshit because now I know that it is under her control, right?

---

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:

---

Is your position that women have the right to get abortions because they own their own uteruses?

---

Sort of.It is because they have the right to body autonomy and privacy.

quote:

---

Is everything a right by default until we have reason for it not to be a right or do things have to positively become a right?

---

The former, I'd say.

quote:

---

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

---

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.

quote:

---

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?

---

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.

I remember him saying that. 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.

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?

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: 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.

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 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?

quote:

---

You say a aoman has control over her wonb, and presumably the being inside. Is that because she created it?

---

No.It's because she has the final say over what happens to her body.

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? 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?

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

And yes the government allowed us to choose, they told us it was ok, by making it legal.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

So, where is it written that you get to be the final arbiter of "what it is"?

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? 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. 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.

I haven't read the explanation I was asking for. Are you refering to Message 70? 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.

He made them part of this discussion, not us. 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. 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.)

Yeah, I've already admitted that. It was on purpose because that's about the only arguments I ever see you make. 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. 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? 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.