Human Rights

Yes, but you act like you don't understnad what I mean when you do, just so you can pick apart the argument instead of actually addressing it. And you need to actually address the arguments people are makeing, and at least try to understand what they are saying instead of purposefully being obtuse so it is easier for you to pick apart the argument. Because it is a type of right. The wikipedians are wrong there. Look at the dictionary definition. I think we are using #3:

quote:

---

Pivilege: 3. a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.

---

And as usual. Your post didn't even address my argument, you just pointed out the contradiction between myself and my source. What, so now your agreeing that you don't have the right to drive on public streets? Now you are contradicting yourself. That's correct. IMHO, He sees abortion as a privilege provided by the government, not a natural right that you are born with. It just so happens that he is wrong.

I don't have time right now but f you really want me too, there's mountains of evidence. I could start a new topic about your style of arguing but I doubt it’d be promoted. The replies I'm talking about are where you go:"So, what your saying is...""Then, by your logic, you mean....."And then you insert something that is far from the point the person was making but is obviously wrong. Instead of strengthening your argument, you rely on weakening theirs.Like, if I said "This soup is not hot."A typical reply from you could be along the lines of:"So, what you're saying is that the soup is ice cold."And then we go back and forth to clarify. Its really annoying to me so I rarely reply to you.I”ll look for example in this thread after I post this. *see ABE below That's pretty much why I don't think you have 100% control(own) of your uterus, or any part of your body, because you don’t have the right to remove another’s right. Now when I first typed that, I was sorta thinking of the female genitalia in its entirety, which I realize the uterus is not. Its pretty hard to think of a way to use a uterus to infringe upon the rights of another person. (Of course, its not that hard if you consider an unborn child as a person).The point remains though, that body autonomy and privacy are not what are giving you the right to abort. And if the unborn is considered a person, I would argue that you don’t have the right, at all.ABE: Message 114

quote:

---

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?

quote:

---

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."

---

​

So, that means that it is your position that she does not own her uterus the moment she becomes pregnant. It appears that your position is that the zygote owns the uterus and the woman has no right to control her own organ anymore.

​

So, a woman who is pregnant does not have the right to control her own uterus anymore, according to you, is that correct?

​

That contradicts your earlier statement that she does, in fact, own her uterus, not the fetus.

---

Message 119

quote:

---

You say that a pregnancy is not like an injury but clearly, an unwanted pregnancy is exactly like an unwanted injury or infection. Think of it like a sexually transmitted disease.

quote:

---

No, I can't think of it like that. But even if I did, it still doesn't mean I have a right to get rid of my desease. I got what I took a chance for, and now I would just be lucky to get rid of it, not have a right to.

---

​

So, what you are saying is that all of those people with AIDS should be left to suffer horribly and die because they knew the risks and have no right to medical treatment.

​

All of those people who get cancer, emphysema, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, etc, due to smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, and stress have no right to treatment, according to you, because they knew the risks of those behaviors and went ahead and did them anyway.

​

Correct?

---

that last one is hilarious. Equating him saying that you don’t have a right for treatment with letting people die horribly.Do you see what I mean now?These aren’t even good example, well the last one is. But I think you’ll get the point I was trying to make.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see abe:

LOLyou totally dodged the part where I pointed out where you contradicted yourself. I think its better to discuss the argument in its entirety as a whole idea. Don't just point out the minor inconsistancies if it doesnt make the argument un-addressable. That's not what happend and you purposefully make things more ambiguous than they have to be so its easier for you to cut through them. See, you see this as a competition. I'd rather have a meaningful discussion and learn something rather than cut through peoples arguments like its a battle debate. There wasn't anything wrong with my resoning until you introduced the unnecessary ambiguity so that you could cut through it. The other parts were more important. I should've realised that you would ignore all the important parts and just look for one little spec that you could cut through and all together avoid the discussion that would prove you wrong. But you didn't address the argument. The discussion would be better if you pushed in a positive direction rather than being so offensive. But when you are wrong, you avoid the discussion and look for mistakes people made in thier argumnent instead of actually addressing the argument.

But she doesn't use equivalent positions. There's a difference in attacking the argument and attacking the position.

First off, you misrepresented RR by saying: but you did ask for clarification: I replied to the first quote above to point out the misrepresentation:

quote:

---

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.

---

and to you request for clarification I gave an example:

quote:

---

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.

---

Now, driving a car on public streets is a common example of the differences between rights and privileges. It thought you would be familiar with it and that me saying you don’t have the right to drive a car was clear enough, apparently it wasn’t. Were you familiar with the car driving example of the difference between a privilege and a right before I mentioned it?Now, here is your reply: Now I realize I forgot the public street part but this disclaimer at the end really looks like you new what I meant. But instead of addressing that there are differences between rights and privileges and the RR saying that abortion is a privilege and not a right does not mean that he is saying that nobody should have abortions anywhere, you would rather argue about how you can drive on private property so you do have the right to drive a car. That isn’t even related to the point I was making, that being a privilege and not a right doesn’t mean that you think people shouldn’t do it.Then we get into whether driving is a privilege or a right and whether there is even a difference between a privilege and a right. The terminology is poor when discussing rights and privileges. You said: Now your arguing whether a privilege can be called a right because if its bestowed like a privilege then it wasn’t a right to begin with so it can’t be called a right.Then I go on to explain the difference between a privilege and a right and how the government can bestow privileges which are a type of rights and so on.All you replied to was where wiki was wrong in saying that a privilege is not a right. You didn’t even address the rest of my argument that proved you wrong that rights can’t be granted at all, where I explained how the government can give you the right to something you didn’t have before.I guess you’re having fun with it but its really annoying to me that you avoid the major points of the argument just to attack any small mistake I made.But working back, governments can give you privileges, which are different than rights that you are born with. RR was arguing that abortion is a privilege, not a right. You replied that he is saying that nobody should have abortions anywhere. That is not what he is saying. That was my argument, and it wasn't wrong. You just look for holes in a correct argument to point out rather than actually addressing the argument.

Sometimes.....What about this one that I mentioned in Message 251:From your Message 119

quote:

---

You say that a pregnancy is not like an injury but clearly, an unwanted pregnancy is exactly like an unwanted injury or infection. Think of it like a sexually transmitted disease.

quote:

---

No, I can't think of it like that. But even if I did, it still doesn't mean I have a right to get rid of my desease. I got what I took a chance for, and now I would just be lucky to get rid of it, not have a right to.

---

​

So, what you are saying is that all of those people with AIDS should be left to suffer horribly and die because they knew the risks and have no right to medical treatment.

​

All of those people who get cancer, emphysema, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, etc, due to smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, and stress have no right to treatment, according to you, because they knew the risks of those behaviors and went ahead and did them anyway.

​

Correct?

---

I don't think those positions are equivalent. Him saying that you don't have a right to a cure doesn't equate to letting people die. He could think that the cure is a privilege and not necessarily a right, which is what his argument on abortion is. You take a position in a debate and support it with arguments. Those arguments can take positions in sub-debates within the debate as a whole. Those sub-positions can be supported by additional arguments.You can refute an argument for a sub-position without hurting the position on the larger debate, especially when the sub-position is forced when the goalpost is moved, for example. One could go through a post and attack all the sub-arguments without even addressing the position in the larger debate. Sometimes the sub-arguments aren’t even needed for the larger position. Someone might include an ambiguity in a sub-argument, and another could reply by just pointing out the ambiguity and not saying anything about the position the person took. That other person would be attacking an argument while not attacking the position.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Me neither.The end.

well, this thread is about over so I assume I won't be able to reply tomarrow. That is what I laid out in Message 3.Nothing makes it a right. Everything is a right until we have a reason for it to not be a right. You need to have a reason for it not to be a right, otherwise it is.Now, I even addressed the natural right issue before it even came up.I said that, ultimately, the life of the unborn child depends on the choices the mother makes. So, without anything else being involved, the life of that child is her choice. Naturally, abortion is the choice of the mother, its her decision. She has the right to make that decision unless there is some reason that she doean't. That is why the onus is on you.It really doesn't have anything to do with the man, for the sake of argument.Her's your reply to Crash making the same point: You have the right to get drunk but there are qualilfiers on it. You can't be in public, or driving a car, etc. Its those extra qualifiers that make you NOT have the right to be drunk in those instances.What is it that makes abortion NOT a right?You claim consent is the reason but I just don't get why.

---

from Message 269You're welcome. They totally misrepresented you and that's why I jumped in. For the record, I do disagree with you.I don't think that I need to come up with a reason for why abortion is NOT a right. I think you need to come up with a (better) reason why it isn't. Simply consenting to sex is not a valid reason. Its because they are liberals. Well, that's what you get for disagreeing with a liberal. If you don't think like they do, then you are an evil bastard and want people to suffer and die.I forget that funny T-shirt where it had a word X and its definition. It was like:X: what you are when you beat a liberal in an argument.Or something like that. You ever seen that one? I think the word was 'bigot' or something.

---

from Message 266LOL.I've pointed out her annoying debate tactics already. 'Reduce to Absurd' is the name of the type of argument. The only problem is that her anologies for reduction are so rediculous/absurd that they're not even applicable.

---

ABE: I prefer the double-fisted, squinty-eyed flick-off..|.. ^.^ ..|.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:

But calling the treatment a privilege instead of a right doean't mean you are advocating that poeple shouldn't have those privileges or shouldn't recieve the treatment. I think you are misunderstnading him. He isn't sayin that people shouldn't be allowed to get abortions. Not having the right to get rid of his disease is not the same as saying that he doesn't deserve treatment.

quote:

---

Most modern conceptions of rights are universalist and egalitarian - in other words, equal rights are granted to all people. There are two main modern conceptions of rights: on the one hand, the idea of natural rights holds that there is a certain list of rights enshrined in nature that cannot be legitimately modified by any human power. On the other hand, the idea of legal rights holds that rights are human constructs, created by society, enforced by governments and subject to change.

​

Rights - Wikipedia

​

Does a woman have a natural right to abortion?

---

Yes, she does. Sidewalk belly-flops, get real drunk every night, smoke a ton of crack, harcore coathanger masturbation. There's lots of ways a woman can abort her child. We don't need any human constructs, societies, or government enforcement to give the woman that right. She has it naturally.So, why do you think she doesn't?Because she consented to sex? That doesn't remove her natural rights now does it?

The reason to call it a right is the lack of a reason to NOT call it a right.Everything is a right until we have a reason for it not to be.

Yeah, I guess so. I understand. "Everything" is usually not a good word to use. Posters here provided reasons for it to be a right, you just didn't find them sufficient enough I do understand your position though.