Human Rights

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.

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"?

quote:

---

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

---

Oh really? Hows about you document that, darlin', or retract?

quote:

---

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.

---

Sure. That's why I asked you to give me an example.

quote:

---

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?

---

Well, I haven't been doing that, really. I've mostly been countering rat's various reasons that he's trying to use to support his claim that it isn't a right.

quote:

---

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?

---

Sure.

quote:

---

I think abortion is moraly wrong, for obvious reasons.

---

I think forced birth is morally wrong, for obvious reasons.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is my position as well, except that one needs to make exceptions for the rare cases when late-term abortions need to take place for the health and life of the mother.If it is a choice between the mother dying or the 8.5 month old fetus, the mother gets to live, unless she specifically chooses to die.That's why blanket laws regarding helthcare are always inadequate.

quote:

---

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).

---

I think that some important milestones to consider are when the fetus can survive outside the uterus, and advanced CNS/brain development.

quote:

---

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.

---

Right.

quote:

---

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.

---

Right.I don't think that will ever be decided.

quote:

---

But she doesn't use equivalent positions.

---

Yes I do.Rat says that he has no right to get treatment for an injury sustained from jumping off a cliff because he knew the risks before jumping.I simply inserted different injuries into his argument to show him how it looks to apply it in that way.Using his example and switching out another activity, such as having sex, he would argue that people who contract STD's have no right to treatment because they knew that there was a risk of contracting STD's.It is very much an equivalent position.

quote:

---

There's a difference in attacking the argument and attacking the position.

---

What is the difference?

quote:

---

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.

---

Sure it is, when the disease or injury is life-threatening, like cancer or AIDS. Or the injuries sustained when jumping off a cliff, for that matter.I asked him to think of an unwanted pregnancy as a STD.He said that If he did think of an unwanted pregnancy as an STD, that people with STD's have no right to treatment for that disease, because they knew that in having sex there was a risk of getting an STD.His words:

quote:

---

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.

---

Now, I then used the exact same argument, only with life threatening maladies such as AIDS and cancer: It's the same argument, CS. I've just plugged different values in to his argument to show the problems with it. Here it is, stated in the abstract:1) Somebody chooses to engage in an activity with known risks.
2) That person experiences the negative consequences of that behavior.
3) That person has no right to mitigate those consequences because they knew the risks going in and chose to engage in that activity anyway.It doesn't matter if the consequences we plug in to his argument are life-threatening or not, since rat never made any exception in any of his arguments for anybody's life as to if they have a right to medical treatment or not.

quote:

---

He could think that the cure is a privilege and not necessarily a right, which is what his argument on abortion is.

---

True, but then he should agree with my example for ALL injuries where people knew the risks before and engaged in them anyway.He should not have had the objection to his own argument when AIDS was plugged in as the consequence instead of pregnancy.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Wait is it she has control over her body, or say?

---

The way I am using the word "control" means the same thing as "say".This has already been explained in this thread.Having "control" of your own skin, for example, means that you can decide to, say, get a tattoo if you want one, not that you can turn your skin purple just by willing it to do so. That's because you control what happens to your skin; you have the final say so over what happens to it.This is the way I am, and have always been, using the word "control".

quote:

---

If I were to use your analogy, then you are saying that abortion is wrong, since running up high credit card debt is wrong too.

---

That is an incorrect reading of my analogy.It is neither here nor there if running up large credit card bills or having an unintended pregnancy is "wrong" or not.The important of the analogy is the part about responsibility.Who is responsible for running up the debt, rat?The government for allowing credit cards to exist, or the person who ran up the bills?(And BTW, it's the unintended pregnancy that is equivalent to running up credit card debt, not the abortion. Declaring bankruptcy would be the equivalent to getting the abortion, because that is what you might do to mitigate the consequences of your actions.)Furthermore, just because some people can't handle credit responsibly, should the government not allow anyone to have credit?

quote:

---

Abortion is ok, because the government has deemed it ok. There are no governement warnings about it.

---

The governement hasn't "deemed it OK."The government has deemed that it doesn't have any business deciding for a woman if it's OK or not.The government has put the control of that decision in the hands of the individual.That's where it belongs, rat.You are perfectly free to NOT have an abortion, just as others are free to have one.It's just up to you and every other individual to make the decision, not the government.It's called freedom.

quote:

---

Yes, our legal system is part of what makes up our morals.
I was morally correct for supporting an abortion.

---

Wow, so does that mean that if flying radio controlled model planes became illegal tomorrow, you would consider it morally wrong for anyone to fly model airplanes?

quote:

---

Well isn't that what this thread is about, a chance for all of us to come to a conclusion of just exactly what is?

---

Well, so far, all you have done is asserted that you are "calling it what it is" and any other way of looking at "it" is, by your definition, wrong.That's why I objected to the OP as an admin before this ever got promoted.Your initial premise, that you know "what it is" and that everybody who disagrees with you is wrong, is why this thread has gone nowhere, as I predicted that it would.

quote:

---

It's not free will that makes her lose a right, it's consent.
It's that birth control is not 100% full proof, so there is no garauntee that she won't become pregnant.

---

It's not free will that makes her lose a right to health care, it's consent.It's that condoms are not 100% full proof, so there is no garauntee that she won't contract AIDS.So, she's got no right to treatment for her AIDS if she consents to intercourse, because condoms are not 100% foolproof?

quote:

---

So all this control is only based on what is legal, and what is available.

---

No, it is based upon the basic human right to own and control one's own body.

quote:

---

What gives a woman a right over the zygote inside of her? Has she no resonsibility for creating it?

---

Yes she does bear responsibility for creating it. That's why it's her responsibility to decide if she wants to gestate it or abort it.

quote:

---

Oh, why because it didn't go your way?

---

LOL! No, it's because you got it wrong. Apparently, you didn't understand it.

quote:

---

You seem to stress the responsibility, and the irresponsibility of people a lot. So I guess a woman has no responsibility to the life she help create?

---

Yes she does. It is her responsibility to decide if she wants to gestate that life or abort it.

quote:

---

But that is why I showed you that it is wrong to run up high credit card bills.

---

But not everybody runs up high credit card bills if they have credit cards. Is the fact that doing so is legal mean that the government approves of such a thing? Is promoting such a thing?Becasue that's YOUR claim; you say that if something is legal that means that the government approves of that thing.

quote:

---

You cannot make an analogy, when the reasons for what happen differ greatly. It's out of context.

---

Why people do those things isn't the point of the analogy.The point of the analogy is if the government is is responsible for people's choices simply because the governemnt allows choices at all.According to your reasoning, if the government allows people choices by not making laws that make every bad thing we do illegal, it somehow means that the governemnt is actively promoting all of those bad things.

quote:

---

People run up high credit card bills, and its wrong. Plus I don't find it a right to go for bankruptcy, that's a privilage. It's very wrong to me.

---

But it is legal.Clearly, even though declaring bankruptcy is perfectly legal, you find it a very wrong thing to do.And by saying this, you have contradicted your previous claim that you base your morals upon what the government deems is legal.

quote:

---

Yes, partially. It's not always about black and white.

---

I am sorry, but if you were to actually start thinking that flying model airplnes was immoral just because the government made it illegal, that would be a stupid thing to think.

quote:

---

Modulus (hope he is better) and many others thinks it comes down to when life starts in the womb, which seems to go beyond just having control.

---

I do not think that is an accurate recall of what he thinks.Perhaps you can find his statement and quote him.

quote:

---

Your thoughts on control also seem to defy all laws of responsibility.

---

No, not at all. The woman can't help but take responsibility. You just don't seem to accept that getting an abortion [b]is onr option for taking responsibility[/i].

quote:

---

You even called it being stupid and irresponsible, and then called getting an abortion irresponble too.

---

No, that's an inaccurate representation of my views.

quote:

---

That does little to argue in favor of it being a right, other than it being legal.

---

Are you saying that people have no right to be stupid?

quote:

---

Other than it being a legal right to do so, no. Being treated for AIDS is a privelage. Which is in direct proportion to the available treatment.

---

I utterly disagree. Being able to make use of available healthcare is a basic human right.

quote:

---

If there was no treatment for AIDS, would we still have a right to treatment? What kind of right is that?

---

We have the basic human right to healthcare, regardless of how we became ill or injured.

quote:

---

The government created bankruptcy laws for people that actually by good intentions, and good actions get into debt, and need a way out. Not for people who go out and blow their loads.

---

So, is the fact that declaring bankruptcy is legal mean that the governement thinks it's OK to run up credit dact debt until declaring bankrupcy?The point of the analogy is if the government is is responsible for people's choices simply because the governemnt allows choices at all.According to your reasoning, if the government allows people choices by not making laws that make every bad thing we do illegal, it somehow means that the governemnt is actively promoting all of those bad things.Is this your position?

quote:

---

There is a huge difference and why your analogy stinks, and I think I get your analogys better than you do.

---

LOL! No, you don't get the analogy at all, and that's why you won't answer the question I just asked, even though that is the point of the analogy.So, is the fact that declaring bankruptcy is legal mean that the governement thinks it's OK to run up credit dard debt until declaring bankrupcy?I've asked this three or four times now. Why won't you answer the question?Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I atill won't call it a right, just like I don't think people who purposely run up high credit card bills, and then claim bankruptcy, to take advantage of a system, is a right. It may be a right legally, but not naturally, or even morally.

---

But I thought you said that your morals were derived from what the government allows as legal?