Human Rights

Ultimately the life of the unborn child depends on the choices the mother makes. If she does not want to be pregnant, then she can insure the death of her unborn child. So, basically, it is her choice.Whether or not that is morally wrong, I don't think is the discussion here.What I don't get for this thread is the whole human rights thing.Do you want an argument for abortion being a human right?From above, to me it seems that before we define the rights and whether or not abortion is in there, that the life of the unborn child depends on the choices the mother makes, so it kinda looks like a right by default.

What if kicking them out of your house ensues their death?

That's mean.

Which is less mean than kicking someone out who you invited over knowing that when they leave they'll die.

It doesn't neccessarily make freedom valueless but you got me on the self-determination.

What a disappointing reply!You didn't reply to my actual argument so I guess you agree with my conclusion that it is a right by default? (I doubt it) What about him? He isn't pregnant and he isn't getting the abortion. The child is half his though. It sucks that if I get a girl pregnant and she wants an abortion and I don't, then there isn't anything I can do but cry while they murder my kid. It also sucks that if I get some other girl pregnant and do not want and cannot afford to have the child with her but she is morally opposed to abortion that I can’t refuse to have the child with her. But this is off topic.What do you want to discuss about the man?The topic here is how is abortion a right. I laid out why I think it is a right by default and am wondering why you think it is not a right.One of your arguments is that contraception is not fail proof and that people know that sex can lead to pregnancy so if people don’t want to be pregnant then they shouldn’t have sex and that people do not have a right to have an abortion to fix their mistake.I sorta agree but I don’t see how this makes it not a right. (the part I sorta disagree with is expecting people to be able to not have sex) I think it is a right by default and just because they’re fixing a mistake doesn’t make it not a right. Why don’t you think it is a right?Another anti-right argument revolves around whether or not the unborn child is a person (which you’ve deemed off topic). Let’s assume that the unborn child is a person.Shouldn’t they then have all the human rights as a born person? Even if they’ve taken up residence in the uterus of a woman, which we can agree that she and not the child owns, shouldn’t the child still retain the same rights the mother has. If the mother has a right to not have things done to her body, then shouldn’t the child have those rights as well?Of course none of the above matters if the unborn child is not a person, but that is off topic.So, where do you want this discussion to go from here?Can I get more that a one line reply this time?Can you explain to me what makes it not a right?How’s that new plane flying?
I’ve been busy lately but I’d really like to see the latest videos, I think they are really cool.

I don't think the possibility of creating life should void your rights. I think that once you have a human, whether its in your uterus or not, then it deserves the rights as well. The human living inside the womanly owned uterus has the right to life even if that compromises the womans right to her own organs. If you don't like it then don't put yourself in a position to loose your rights. Is that how your seeing it? Natural abortions exists and unnatural abortions are possible without technology. I'm thinking 10 ft dirt belly-flops. Or poisoning the unborn child to death while yourself survives. You should ditch the technology road, IMHO.

Because it can result in another person, with their own rights, to be included in the equation. Assuming the unborn child is a person, wouldn't 'fixing it' be infringing upon the unborn person's rights?

Assuming that it is a person and that people have rights, yes.ABE:Haven't there been men who have murdered pregnant women been charged with a double murder of the mother and the child?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:

Well we know that people have rights so its really only one assumption: that an unborn child is a person. That's harldy an 'aweful lot', IMHO. Its an important point of disagreement in the abortion debate that shouldn't be handwaved, but it has been deamed off-topic for this thread so lets drop it. Then you should prepare for an uncomfortable time debating on an internet discussion forum. There's a lot of what-if scenarios 'round-here. Yes, legally. But the scope of this thread is why abortion is a right. Your analogies (which are just like the what-if scenarios you're not comfortable with) don't work for explaining why abortion is a right because sex is different as I explained above.The crux of your argument is:

quote:

---

Pregnancy (to some) is just another unwanted consequence of sex. And I believe they have the right to fix it.

---

What gives them the right and why should they have it?I said that they wouldn't have that right if the unborn child was considered a person with their own rights which moves the argument to when is the fetus a person which has been deamed off-topic and we should not discuss.I would like to read your answer to my question though.

Do. You can't use your rights to infringe upon the rights of others, correct?

Well, generally speaking, isn't that a given when talking about rights. That you have rights, but you can't use a right to take away another person's right? Well, I don't think it'll work well but I'll play along.You're standing outside next to someone who is smoking cigarettes and want to force them to stop to protect your lungs. You feel you have the right to not have to move nor have to breath second hand smoke and they feel they have the right to not move and to smoke. It could be said that their right to smoke is taking away your right to not breath second hand smoke, but then, you are the one having the problem, not them. So I'd say that you don't have the right to make them stop smoking.

so, what?Do you think you have the right to make them stop smoking? I'm sorry (but you asked for it). You kinda seemed to dodge the first one so excuse me for not rushing into thinking up another one. Perhaps you could?

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

---

Is your position that women have the right to get abortions because they own their own uteruses?Certainly there are things that you do NOT have the right to do with things that you own. Ownership alone, is not what gives poeple the rights to do things with something. How do we determine if you do not have the right to do a thing with something that you own? 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?

---

LOL, when he does answer it a few posts down you wave your hand

I think his position is that they are allowed to have aboriton, by law, but that they don't have the right to have an abortion, that it is a privilege.