Human Rights

quote:

---

Why is it a right for both a man and a woman to have consensual sex, AND get an abortion?

---

Because mankind made it so. We developed birth control other than abstinence and made safer abortions possible.Now I can have consensual sex without the intent to have a child. I can use birth control to cut down the chances of getting pregnant and I can have an abortion should that birth control fail to stop the natural outcome.It's all about the individual. Who give us those rights? We do.Interesting that I can abort my child, but I'm not allowed to abort my own life.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Well that's kind of what I've been saying, yet people keep making comparisons, and bad ones at that too. In order for a comparison to be used, it has to have the same underlying theme, and logic to it, so far I have not yet seen that, except for the ones I gave, and even those can be nit-picked. 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. She doesn't have a right in every situation, haven't you been reading? You still haven't addressed Message 70I never said I was. It is either a right or not, I don't think it is subjective.

Do you come from dodge? Because that is what you just did. Try addressing what I said, and not accusing me of strawmen.Why is it if you make a comparison it's all fine and good, but if I do, it's a strawman?At least the comparison I provided makes perfect logical sense.By your line of reasoning, we should go around and disconnect all life support from all the neonatal babies.I heard that unicycles can actually pedal backwards. [ABE]
combining posts. Since when is it a right to become pregnant? It may be a right to try, but isn't it up to nature to decide if a woman will actually get pregnant, and finish her pregnancy? All we can do is try to help make that happen, if it is desired, and that is a privilage, not a right.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

I never said that anyone could not get an abortion if they so choose. It's legal, and thats the law.I need your opinion of Message 70

Because you didn't make a comparison; you misrepresented the arguments of your opponents. Nobody's argued in favor of pulling the plug on the neonatal wing; in fact, in response to that very question, I've repeatedly laid out the reasons why opposing forced birth has nothing to do with euthanizing infants on life-support. By my line of reasoning? No. Only by your line of reasoning, where an adult woman is nothing more than a life-support machine for embryos, does that follow. Your continued disdain for the rights and independance of women becomes more and more obvious, even as you deny it. You'd like to conceal it, but the more you compare women to machines, the more obvious it becomes that women are nothing but objects to you. Well, certainly the court in recent rulings has striken down any attempt to legislate or adjudicate a couple's right to reproduce, if they so choose. That's why we don't have population control measures, for instance.So, since when? Look, RR, you're not the one who decides what rights women have and don't have. If you don't believe they have a certain right, you need to explain why. Under our constitutional system, people have all the rights that there's no reason for them not to have. You seem to be drawing a distinction between the rights people have under the law and the rights they have under... something else, though you refuse to say what that might be.Nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about, and your mode of argument seems to be limited to "I say they don't have such-and-such a right, so they don't. Prove me wrong."You'll pardon me if I don't find that very compelling, since you're not the arbiter of rights. Your opinion on rights is essentially meaningless, especially since you've already said you don't plan on taking any measures to oppose abortion. You're free to hold your own opinion, as I am mine, but if you expect it to be taken seriously you need to be taking an effort to defend it, not simply demanding that we convince you otherwise. We've laid out how we justify our positions, and you haven't addressed any of that. You've just repeated yours.Ok, we get it. You think women who have sex are supposed to be baby machines. You've consistently compared them to life-support machines and a host of other objects and situations that communicate loud and clear your belief that women are not people, but uteruses (uteri?) on legs. Well, gotcha. If you're intent on dehumanizing women, no argument of ours is going to convince you otherwise.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Nicely put, but it still doesn't explain why it is a right, other than just saying it is one, and thats that.
{ABE}
But from the op "The obvious answer is because you can get an abortion, that makes it a right."
{end edit} I was going to mention that way back, but then someone will just say that it should be a right to take your own life. It seems that a liberals point of view is always based on the premise that if it is consentual, then the world has nothing to say about it. So if I want to take my own life, thats none of your business.Can you answer the question in Message 70 ?Edited by riVeRraT, : added something

No I didn't. You claim that since a zygote cannot support life on its own, it's not life, and can die. Then so can neonatal babies.And you dodged the questions again.So what happens when we can support a zygote without the womb. What happens then? I thought smear tactics were for conservatives, wtf? cut the crap.

No, I didn't. Why are you intent on misrepresenting my argument? Then fetuses who would normally be aborted should be put up for adoption, instead. Surgeon, heal thyself. Your disdain for women couldn't possibly be any clearer. (Let me let you in on something that should be completely obvious. Just because you like to have sex with women doesn't make you pro-woman. It simply makes you heterosexual. Being pro-woman, being feminist, means seeing women as equal people and not just as fuckholes of varying degrees of attractiveness.)Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

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.

quote:

---

I'll ask you, what rights of a woman get violated if a man rapes her, and impregnates her?

---

The same rights she has at any other time; the right to body autonomy.It's her uterus.

quote:

---

Also, I thought we determined that a zygote is not part of her body.

---

No it isn't, but her uterus is part of her body.I suppose if it is your position that a woman gives up her right to bodily autonomy as soon as she gets pregnant, it means you are advocating forced birth.How very...controlling of you.

Oh boy, you mean in the last 30 years, there has been 40 million abortions, so now the next 30 we will have 40 million adoptions? No crashfrog, your mistaken. Being pro-woman doesn't mean believing in everything you believe in. There are plenty of woman who would agree with me. You are arguing the person now, and you have insulted me .....again. Thanks bro.

quote:

---

But that's the root of it.

---

Yes, I agree.

quote:

---

Am I forcing a woman to have sex?

---

You are forcing your own morality upon how she deals with one of the consequences of sex.

quote:

---

To get pregnant?

---

No. You are forcing her to be pregnant, if you believe that she does not have the right to body autonomy; to control her own organs.

quote:

---

No, so I am not forcing her to have an aboprtion, or to carry to term.

---

Yes, you just did.When you say that a woman no longer has the right to body autonomy, and it is merely a "privilage" (implying that it is a nice thing to allow women to have but it can be taken away at whim) rather than a right, then you are, in essence, forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth.

quote:

---

The womans wishes were already determined once she AND the man consent to intercourse, I or anyone else has litlle to do with it.

---

So, by this logic, a woman who consents to sex and contracts a STD was actually desireous of getting the disease, is that correct?There is a difference between consenting to have intercourse and wishing to become pregnant. That you are conflating the two is particularly lame, rat. This has already been pointed out to you in this thread.Consenting to sex and wishing to be pregnant are not the same thing.

quote:

---

You make it seem like it's our fault that woman get pregnant, who don't want to be, and that is BS. I'm calling BS on that one schraf, you'll have to do better.

---

Excuse me? I never said or implied anything of the sort. That's straight from your imagination, I'm afraid.

How did the zygote get there?You act as if some alien abducted her and impregnated her. Your point is mute in this discussion, I have said like three times already, that a woman owns her womb. What she does with it, is none of my business. Finally someone answers that question.So when a man rapes her, he violates that right, but when a woman gives herself up willingly, she hasn't given up that same right?If I do anything at all to myself, that can include some kind of consequence, do I really have a right to correct it, or is it just a privilage. I did to myself, I deserve it. I deserve anything that becomes of it, whether it can be fixed or not.If I burn myself, and I go to the hospital to get fixed, I have to suffer the stay. If a woman gets pregnant, and gets an abortion, she suffers through that process. Neither I or her have a right to not go through that, we are the makers of our own destinys. It's a privilage for it to be corrected, not a right. What's withyou and crash, stop the smearing, and the insults. Stop violating the rules. Why should anyone listen to what you have to say, when all you can do is insult me? Now once in this thread did I say that a woman can't get an abortion, so what's your problem?

No I am not, I am calling it what it is. No I am not. I am not implying anything. Abortion does not hinge of whether it is a right or not. Not unless birth control becomes 100% fullproof, you cannot make that statement. They could be expressed as almost exactly the same.
1. If you consent to intercourse, you take the chance of getting pregnant.
2. If you have intercourse with the desire to become pregnant, you take the chance of becoming pregnant.What's the difference really? One's desires? Can ones desires override what actually is?I desire the sun to be purple, will it ever be purple, because I have a right to it being purple.

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?

Not technically. Technically, he is saying that killing the baby is not a right. That's all, logically.He isn't forcing her to be pregnant. She is already pregnant hypothetically.He's arguing that you cannot then kill the baby as a fix. The consequent of this is not continuation of pregnancy and then birth, as the antecedant was the sex the woman had.If RR was forcing something, it wouldn't have been forced precedingly. Because it was already happening, hypothetically, then blame cannot validly be placed on RR.Your argument is the same as this one;Bob needs a new heart or he will die. Because Jivebunny won't kill Jack with a knife, so he can steal his heart for Bob, then it's Jivebunny that will force the death of Bob.Not at all. Jivebunny simply won't observe this as a right, nor a course of action to solve the problem.RR's view is merely the denial of a postive. He will not observe a right to abort. This doesn't mean we can blame RR anymore than we can blame jivebunny.IMO, RR has every right to voice this opinion.