Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Rights
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 271 of 303 (369162)
12-11-2006 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by riVeRraT
12-11-2006 8:48 PM


It's because she has the final say over what happens to her body.
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 8:48 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 10:22 PM nator has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 272 of 303 (369163)
12-11-2006 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by riVeRraT
12-11-2006 9:01 PM


No matter how simply it is explained, they will pretend like they don't get it, and that I am a fool for thinking this way.
No matter how simple you make it, RR, you're wrong.
That's all there is to it. You're completely wrong - abortion is a human right because no human being has the right to force a woman to let them live in her uterus for nine months against her will.
But we told you that at the beginning. You said "nu-uh", but you've never been able to explain why. You're the one who doesn;t get it, as far as Schraf and I can see. And we are intelligent, which is why we've been able to figure out why you don't see something so obvious.
But, whatever. If you think women are nothing more than uteruses, and God forbid they have the right to determine who's gonna live in it, there's no talking to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 9:01 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 10:29 PM crashfrog has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 273 of 303 (369165)
12-11-2006 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by riVeRraT
12-11-2006 8:53 PM


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.
What, are you dependant upon the government to tell you what your morals are?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 8:53 PM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 274 of 303 (369166)
12-11-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by riVeRraT
12-11-2006 8:54 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 8:54 PM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 275 of 303 (369167)
12-11-2006 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by riVeRraT
12-11-2006 9:10 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 9:10 PM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 276 of 303 (369170)
12-11-2006 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 8:58 PM


I'm starting to have a problem with the name-calling.
How does it feel?
Oh, well, whatever - creationists get away with anything, don't you.
Whew, good thing I am not a creationist. But I was starting to think the same of you and schraf, like a sort of EVC conspiracy or something.
Because people are free, people have all rights not specifically disallowed. If you say that abortion is not a right then you're saying that it is (or should be) disallowed.
That statement id false, and here is the reason why. The opposite of what you say would not be true then. Being drunk is disallowed in many instances, yet it is still a right to be drunk.
You are only refering to legal rights in your statement, and yet at the begining of this thread, I stated I was not talking about the legal right, or the fact that it is allowed.
Human rights are niether allowed or disallowed, yet they are rights.
I see that view as entirely anathema to freedom, but I also see it as entirely consistent with your stated views.
Now your calling me un-American, way to go. I guess you think your the only one that can do the name calling in here? You still have not made a case, only just disagreed with me, and insulted me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 8:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 10:27 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 277 of 303 (369172)
12-11-2006 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by nator
12-11-2006 9:11 PM


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.
So all this control is only based on what is legal, and what is available.
What gives a woman a right over the zygote inside of her? Has she no resonsibility for creating it?
She can not exercise any of this "control" without affecting another form of life. What gives her a right to do so? You seemed to have dogdged that one.
That is an incorrect reading of my analogy.
Oh, why because it didn't go your way? Maybe we should just stay away from analogys forever.
The important of the analogy is the part about responsibility.
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?
(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.)
But that is why I showed you that it is wrong to run up high credit card bills. You cannot make an analogy, when the reasons for what happen differ greatly. It's out of context. 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.
The government has put the control of that decision in the hands of the individual.
That's where it belongs, rat.
Well that doesn't make it a right or not a right, being in the hands of the individual. I am not saying in this thread that it does, or doesn't belong in the hands of the individual, yet you still argue that point. Amazing.
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?
Yes, partially. It's not always about black and white.
That's why I objected to the OP as an admin before this ever got promoted.
Yet you spent so much time in here, strange.
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.
I never said anyone is wrong. You cannot convince me, just by disagreing with me.
You are the only one who has even attempted to make a point refuting what I am saying, and that has to do with control. You and scientist have been discussing just what that control is. I discussed it with you too, and it is not a hands down clear answer as to why it is a right.
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.
Your thoughts on control also seem to defy all laws of responsibility. You even called it being stupid and irresponsible, and then called getting an abortion irresponble too. That does little to argue in favor of it being a right, other than it being legal.
There are many sides to this debate, and if we could leave our feelings out of it, and stop making stupid analogys, maybe some truth could come to light.
So, she's got no right to treatment for her AIDS if she consents to intercourse, because condoms are not 100% foolproof?
Didn't we cover this way back?
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.
If there was no treatment for AIDS, would we still have a right to treatment? What kind of right is that?
I've condensed all your replies......again...... as I am sure you are just trying to make 300 posts ASAP.


Exposing the lies, one truth at a time!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by nator, posted 12-11-2006 9:11 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by nator, posted 12-12-2006 8:09 AM riVeRraT has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 278 of 303 (369174)
12-11-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by riVeRraT
12-11-2006 10:04 PM


Now your calling me un-American, way to go.
You have a very vivid imagination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 10:04 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 10:33 PM crashfrog has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 279 of 303 (369175)
12-11-2006 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 9:13 PM


No matter how simple you make it, RR, you're wrong.
That's all there is to it. You're completely wrong - abortion is a human right because no human being has the right to force a woman to let them live in her uterus for nine months against her will.
I don't have a problem with being wrong, unlike some. But I cannot be wrong, just because you say I am wrong.
You say no-one has a right to force a woman, but that is a strawman? No one has forced a woman to do anything, don't you get it? She is the one who consented, and got herself pregnant, with the help of some sperm (which you guys guys keep avoiding)
The man has no say in any of this, yet it was half his biological function that made it happen, and both consented. You guys are like woman chauvinist pigs. There are no equal rights for men?
If you think women are nothing more than uteruses,
..|..
false....again? gmafb
And you think all life is precious, except the one in the uterus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 9:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by DrJones*, posted 12-11-2006 10:39 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 282 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 10:59 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 280 of 303 (369177)
12-11-2006 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by crashfrog
12-11-2006 10:27 PM


What is a right?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by crashfrog, posted 12-11-2006 10:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2006 1:00 AM riVeRraT has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 281 of 303 (369178)
12-11-2006 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by riVeRraT
12-11-2006 10:29 PM


No one has forced a woman to do anything,
By denying her an abortion you're forcing her to give birth.
She is the one who consented, and got herself pregnant
As others have stated time and time again consent to intercourse is not consent to pregnancy.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 10:29 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by riVeRraT, posted 12-12-2006 7:53 AM DrJones* has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 282 of 303 (369182)
12-11-2006 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by riVeRraT
12-11-2006 10:29 PM


No one has forced a woman to do anything, don't you get it? She is the one who consented, and got herself pregnant, with the help of some sperm (which you guys guys keep avoiding)
And so she has to stay pregnant?
Is that on a form, or something?
There are no equal rights for men?
To have abortions?
Do you see why none of us think you're very serious about actually discussing this rationally?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 10:29 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by riVeRraT, posted 12-12-2006 7:59 AM crashfrog has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 303 (369207)
12-12-2006 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by riVeRraT
12-11-2006 9:10 PM


well, this thread is about over so I assume I won't be able to reply tomarrow.
Your question is the exact opposite of what I asked in the op, to help me understand this concept a little better, and that is, what makes it a right, other than being legal?
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:
Being drunk is disallowed in many instances, yet it is still a right to be drunk.
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 269
First off, I want to thank you, for sticking up for me, and what I am trying to say, whether you support it or not. Thanks
You'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.
I do not consider crash or schraf unintelligent, so it must be something else then.
Its because they are liberals.
There is obviuously emotions involved, not logic, so all rational discussion is out the window. There is obviuously emotions involved, not logic, so all rational discussion is out the window. No matter how simply it is explained, they will pretend like they don't get it, and that I am a fool for thinking this way.
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 266
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?
More stupid analogys. Can't you ever just address the point, or at least make an analogy within the context of the discussion?
LOL.
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:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 9:10 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by riVeRraT, posted 12-12-2006 8:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 303 (369208)
12-12-2006 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by nator
12-11-2006 6:29 PM


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.
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.
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.
I think you are misunderstnading him. He isn't sayin that people shouldn't be allowed to get abortions.
RR writes:
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.
Not having the right to get rid of his disease is not the same as saying that he doesn't deserve treatment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by nator, posted 12-11-2006 6:29 PM nator has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 303 (369210)
12-12-2006 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by riVeRraT
12-11-2006 10:33 PM


Re: What is a right?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by riVeRraT, posted 12-11-2006 10:33 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by riVeRraT, posted 12-12-2006 8:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024