Human Rights

Riverrat, in my former life I was a very religious person. The transition to atheism for me left many moral issues dangling. I struggled with some of these issues for a long time.For example, in my former life I believed that sex was evil. I'm a liberal now and I now believe that it's really none of my bussiness about other people's sex lives. However, in the back of my mind sex still carries a kind of negative stigma. You could say it's a conflict between my former and current selfs. I'm probably the only man I know that actually tries to avoid sex with his wife.But at the same time, I cannot deny the fact that just about everyone else I know don't have the same personal view about sex. Most other people I know and know of enjoy sex and would like to have sex as often as possible. I don't see that much of a beauty in sex, but I respect people's opinion and so I don't try to regulate their sexual behaviors. I do, however, encourage people to practice safe sex.But suppose that at the spur of the moment a couple of people decided not to have safe sex and ended up with an unwanted pregnancy. Or perhaps they did practice safe sex and they happened to be part of the few that got unlucky. Should the woman be allowed to discontinue an unwanted pregnancy?I struggled with this question ever since I converted to atheism. My current position isn't clear, even to myself. But consider the following scenario for the moment.Suppose one day I drive a car down the street. I've been described by my friends as driving like a grandmother, so you can imagine how careful I am when on the road. Suppose at the spur of the moment I decide to go over the speed limit and WHAM! I hit a pedestrian.Because of me, this person loses most of his organs and in need of new organs. Unfortunately for him, there ain't no organs for him for 9 months (takes them nine months to artificially create organs for him star trek style). And by the stroke of improbable luck, I'm the only person in the world that's compatible to him. So, I could either volunteer to allow them to plug me up with him for 9 months or let him die. I decide to let him use my organs.Four months later, I become a self-hating, suicidal son-of-a-bitch who doesn't like to share his organs. I want to disconnect myself from this bed-ridden guy and, as a side affect, let him die.There was no written contract when this whole thing started, so I feel that I have no obligation to continue to share my organs with this guy. It was, after all, an accident that I ran him over with my car.The question is should society have the right to force me to continue to share my organs with this person against my will? Or, have I lost my right to complete control over my organs at the moment I accidently ran over him?By the way, for the record, I still consider the goo of cells (aka embryo, fetus, etc.) to be a human being. I guess it's part of my former self I haven't been able to get rid of...

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Ok, suppose instead of a car as we know it, it's a futuristic car that takes 2 people to drive. There's a reason I went into sex at the beginning of my last post. For me, sex is for pleasure only. But as far as I know, many people would argue that sex is a necessary part of their lives. I don't have that much of a sex drive, so I can't really argue against that point.The reason I used the car as an example is because for many people driving is very similar to sex. It's somewhat necessary sometimes and not necessary in other times. You can always take the bus, taxi, or ask someone else to drive for you. In about the same way, you can masturbate, mutually masturbate with a partner, or simply have someone give you a blowjob. But obviously a lot of people out there chose to have sex, just like a lot of people out there chose to drive rather than take the bus or taxi. You should really try to see the implications of the examples rather than nitpick for every little hole in them. That is your opinion. However, many people, like crash and schraf, hold the opinion that one person can offer to help and then take that offer back half way through.This, I think, is where rational debate ends and personal opinion begins. It is obvious to crash and schraf that a person should be able to retain full ownership and control over his/her most personal properties (his/her organs) at all times and that no obligation should superceed such ownership and control. You, on the other hand, is convinced that there are certain obligations in life that can and do superceed a person's complete ownership and control over his/her organs.I'm leaning toward crash's position. However, I still hold doubts about such position.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Mike, I think you are using a strawman against crashfrog and schraf. Nobody is talking about killing the fetus, or the person inside your house. They are talking about evicting an unwanted being.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Please read my second post in this thread for the answer to this. I think you are letting your emotion about this issue get in the way of seeing clearly what other people are saying.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Ok, let's stop using comparasons and go directly to the issue. You've contradicted yourself. So, does certain obligations superceed a person's complete right over his/her own body or not?The reason this is the whole point of the matter is because abortion isn't considered the killing of the fetus you know. Abortion usually just involves disconnecting (what some people like to call) the parasite disallowing it from using the woman's organs. Once that happens, the "parasite" automatically dies and gets flushed out of her system naturally. It's called evicting an unwanted being.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

That's a shady area. If you could think up of a scenario where by protecting my organs I end up infringing other people's rights, I could answer you better, hopefully.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Very shady area indeed. I want to say "outside" is public property so... Thanks for giving me a headache.Next?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Couldn't you take the hint that I don't have a good answer for your scenario there? I honestly don't know. When I was responding last time, I could think of good arguments for both sides. I did, didn't I. The reason I don't have a good answer for you is because the smoking takes place in a public place, and weird things happen in public places. Now, if it were inside a restaurant, then I have an answer for you.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Actually, if you jump off a cliff and the medical professionals know about it, they have to help you. This is why people who attempt to commit suicide have the right to be helped, and in most cases they do get help.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Actually, close but not exactly. Right means protection. So, when you have rights it means you are protected. If you have "human rights", it means you are protected from being treated otherwise. I don't agree. I don't agree. I don't agree. I don't agree... wholeheartedly. I don't agree.I was writing out responses for each one when I realized that (1) this post will probably get buried under another 8 pages of riverrat-schraf dialogue, (2) too much of both your argument and mine are nothing more than personal opinion, (3) I am beginning to think that you make absolutely no effort to at least understand another person's opinion, and (4) I don't want to get into a repetition contest like the one you are having with schraf.With that said, I agree to disagree.PS - I am prolife and I consider the egg to be a person and alive at the point of conception.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Like I said, these guys are having a repetition contest without trying to understand where each other is standing. It really is a typical riverrat-schraf/crashfrog dialogue.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

I think that because you've been trying to debate his personal opinion. It's like trying to debate why my favorite color is yellow instead of red, or rather why I think everyone's favorite color should be yellow rather than red.RR is basing his argument mostly on his personal opinion as a christian. Notice that much of his emphasis is on punishment of those who he thinks deserve it. If you play with fire, then you deserve to be burned. If you drive irresponsibly, then you deserve to crash and die. If you jump off a building, then you deserve to die. If you have unprotected sex, then you deserve to be pregnant. Such typical christian view of life and hell.You, on the other hand, are trying to emphasize on correcting the error and help those that have made the error. If you play with fire and get burned, you still get treatment for the burn. If you drive irresponsibly, you still get hauled to the emergency room. If you jump off a buildling, well... I guess it depends on whether it's groundhog day or not. If you have unsafe sex, you can still get a another chance by ejecting an unwanted fetus. Such typical bleeding heart liberal attitude.Doesn't really work and yet you guys are keeping at it. Notice how most of the posts here are just repeats of preceding posts in different words. You guys are talking right past each other. You don't agree with how he view rights and when people have them and don't have them or you don't agree with how he is making his argument?

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Knowing you, it's not like you need any kind of balancing.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.

Only after schraf pointed it out. When he first stated it, he didn't mention anything about treatment. He only said that if you play with fire then you get burned.You are misreading what I said. There is no doubt in my mind that RR thinks people should get treatment for getting burned. But his emphasis is on the getting burned and deserving to be burned part not the treatment part. Yes and no. It's not whether she should be allowed to take the steps to rectify the situation. According to him, it's whether she herself has given up such right to rectify it or not when she consented to having sex. At least according to RR, it's all up to her whether she decides to have the right to her organs or waive it. I have no doubt that you think you do. I'm not even sure I understand where he's coming from. I haven't caught this part yet. Did I miss it somewhere? Well, I have no argument with you here. RR, like many christians I have encountered, doesn't strike me as one who values the golden rule. But I guess I'll reserve judgement for later. Didn't I say he had the typical christian view on life? Of course he thinks he has the moral high ground. The question is why do you keep trying to change what is obviously his deepest and most personal opinion? Idunno, maybe you thought schraf was saying everything you wanted to say? The thing that reinforced this suspicion is when you noticed my post that was buried in pages and pages of the dialogue. In other words, you were very carefully looking at each post of this thread.Anyway, I don't know why I'm even posting in this thread. It just seems pointless and boring to me. There's a reason why I stopped talking to RR, especially on the gay issue. He wants to be a biggot, he can stay being one. My mistake for keeping uptodate with this thread.

---

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc

​

The thread about this map can be found here.