Human Rights

Actually, that didn't clear much up. I'm still wondering what 'natural rights' are *AND* I'm still wondering just what kind of right you are expecting people to provide. You admit we have legal rights to abortion. You accept that some people may have a moral right to abortion. You don't seem to fully understand PD's 'natural right'. What kind of right are we debating?

Man, this thread turned out to be one of the most boring I have followed.
It goes like this...rR: Show me how abortion is a right
Schraft/Frog: It is a right just as ABC is a right (Half analogies ooze all over my computer)
rR: I don`t think those are right rights either. Rights for me are things like DEF. ABC are privileges (What the hell is that supposed to mean?)
Scraft?Frog: ABC are rights just like GHI are rights
rR: GHI are privileges too.Would anybody care to actually define their terms???

Maybe you should go study the word "rights"
Then try to use those definitions to describe abortion after consent to intercourse.The word right to me is something we deserve, because it is necessary for our survival, like human rights. Most people who demand rights, or even suggest them, like civil rights, or the right to vote, do so out of protection for themselves. Because some outside force is preventing them from what they so rightly deserve.People who want abortion to be legal, also feel like there is an outside force preventing them from attaining what they so "rightly" deserve.But what is it that they so rightly desever? Body autonomy? They have it already, they can choose not to have intercourse. Once you take that risk, I feel you give up that right, and it then becomes a privilage to correct your, and I quote, "stupid and irresponsible mistake".You exercise your right to body autonomy, when you say yes, stick it in. You are now letting someone do something to you, that can lead to something you don't want. Why then should it be a right to correct this "mistake?" I see it as more of a privilage, and not a right.We do not have a right to intercourse without the risk of getting pregnant, why should we have the right to abort? I am not saying we shouldn't, but I am only saying it is incorrectly described as a right. Other than being legal, I do not see it as a right.It's like commiting a crime, and not having to do the time. Even schraf called it irresponsible. We have a responsibility once we make a decision to have intercourse, and create another living thing.This right is almost completely dictated by science and technology. If we did not have the advancments to abort babies safely, then there would be no abortion. So there is no natural right to abortion. A woman cannot just look at her womb, and give a little squeeze, and pop the baby out before it's time. If a woman had true control over her womb, she would be able to do this, and abort herself.Go ahead and look up the word rights, and do some comparisons, you'll see how ridiculus it is to call abortion a right for anything more than it just being legal.

quote:

---

I might be delusional and actually think I can beat the odds, and get in anyway,

---

Odds? I said certainty, rat. That means your "odds" are 100% that you are going to be seriously injured. You are ,for sure, going to be injured.

quote:

---

I mean who cares, I am caught in the moment, it's a lovely red ferrari, and my wife is all decked out in her high heels, how can I just say no?

---

Because, presumably, you aren't a complete moron.Consenting to a certainty and consenting to a possibility are two very different things.

quote:

---

Depends if I have to drive somewhere, or if I am driving for fun, and to get my rocks off.

---

So, you agree that you are actually consenting to be seriously injured in a crash, and it is entirely your fault for being in a car in the first place?

quote:

---

This whole thing was started by Micheal Moore's ridiculus pledge.

---

That has nothing to do with what I was responding to, which was your bizzare statemnt:

quote:

---

In a sense, she violates herself when she commits to intercourse, if she doesn't intend on becoming pregnant.

---

quote:

---

Yes, because she consented to the risk.

---

This response makes no sense whatsoever. What does risk have to do with rights? More blathering.Please explain how, in detail, how a woman is violating her own rights when she has consentual sex without wanting to become pregnant.Please explain how, in detail, a woman's rights are violated every time she has consentual sex.

quote:

---

There is a difference between needing to do something, and wanting too.

---

You were still irresponsible and stupid for getting on your roof without proper safety equipment. You must therefore mean that you have no right to medical treatment, right?

quote:

---

You see what you just did there? You went from one extreme to the other, by comparing pregnancy to warts, when I compared to an arm. Actually I think it's worse than an arm.

---

No, I did no such thing, rat. I compared getting an abortion to the treatment for genital warts and also to getting multiple cosmetic surgeries.I'm sure you didn't mean to say that a woman who gets pregnant over and over again and popps out baby after baby should have her head examined, right? You were talking about someone who gets pregnant and has abortion after abortion, correct?Well, we should compare procedures that are similar in complexity, invasiveness, convalecence, etc. Getting one's arm sewn on after cutting it off is not even in the same ballpark as an abortion by any measure.Please try to keep track of your own arguments.

quote:

---

But that's what woman used to do naturally if they didn't want their children. If your agreeing with me, that it is wrong to do that, then so is abortion.

---

No, rat, infanticide and abortion are not equivalent.Who owns the uterus, rat?If it isn't the pregnant woman, is it the zygote? Is it the government?

quote:

---

What about babies in the neonatal, that need life support to finish their growth and become a living independant being?

---

What about them? Such technology is great.

quote:

---

Babies are for being born, that should be my new sig.

---

So, what are women for?Why, women are for birthing babies, of course!

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.

I'm not trying to jump into this thread but I had to question this. You honestly believe that there would be no abortion if they weren't "safe?"When do you think abortions started being performed?What do you consider 'advancements'... herbal abortifacients? coathangers? sticks? extreme pressure on the abdomen?

quote:

---

The word right to me is something we deserve, because it is necessary for our survival, like human rights.

---

All human rights are not necessary to our survival.Many human rights are necessary to our dignity and freedom.

quote:

---

But what is it that they so rightly desever? Body autonomy? They have it already, they can choose not to have intercourse. Once you take that risk, I feel you give up that right, and it then becomes a privilage to correct your, and I quote, "stupid and irresponsible mistake".

---

So, according to you, the person who contracts an STD when they consent to intercourse has given up their right to medical treatment.

quote:

---

You exercise your right to body autonomy, when you say yes, stick it in. You are now letting someone do something to you, that can lead to something you don't want. Why then should it be a right to correct this "mistake?" I see it as more of a privilage, and not a right.

---

Getting life saving treament is merely a "privilage" that is granted to them and can easily be taken away, rather than a right?

quote:

---

A woman cannot just look at her womb, and give a little squeeze, and pop the baby out before it's time. If a woman had true control over her womb, she would be able to do this, and abort herself.

---

A smoker cannot just look at his cancerous lungs, and give a little cough, and hack the cancer out. If a smoker had true control over his body, he would be able to do this, and cure himself.

quote:

---

We do not have a right to intercourse without the risk of getting pregnant, why should we have the right to abort? I am not saying we shouldn't, but I am only saying it is incorrectly described as a right. Other than being legal, I do not see it as a right.

---

We do not have a right to smoke without the risk of getting cancer, why should we have the right to cancer treatment? I am not saying we shouldn't, but I am only saying it is incorrectly described as a right. Other than being legal, I do not see it as a right.

Thats semantics really. If your pregnant, then your 100% pregnant, and it has happened to you. No one actually believes it will happen to them, thats the problem, and just in case it does, there is abortion, wonderful. So what am I a partial moron? That's insult #3 in one thread. I can see just how partial this discussion forum is to liberals and the like, what a bunch of BS. I am really thinking of leaving this forum, it's just not worth it. You and others like you, will forever not get it. Which has nothing to do with the op. Yes, just like pregnancy, 100% of the blame goes to the parties involved, very good, no your starting to understand, I knew you'd come around. I already did in Message 153 and several other places. I said in a sense they are violated, she forfeits her rights to body autonomy when she consents to the possibility of getting pregnant. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. If it wasn't for science she would have to remain that way. She can't control her womb, and will the baby out, so she really doesn't have body autonomy anymore. She could have just said no, and then she would remain unpregnant. Yes, if you know that your supposed to be wearing it, then yes you have no right to medical treatment, only a legal one, and it's a privilage of medical science can help you.If you fallen off the roof and died, and medical science couldn't bring you back, do you also have a right to be alive???? This is it, I had enough of this bogus comparison BS.
A pregnancy, and a zygote, or a fetus is not: a drive without a seat belt, a cosmetic wart, a lost arm, falling off a roof, a clump of cells, or anything else. IT is what it is, this is what it is:A pregnancy is the start of life. It is growth. It is where we all came from, it is human DNA when left to grow will develop into a living breathing thinking human being. The fact that it is in its developmental stage is irrelevant to what it will become if all is normal. People on life support are not growing, They are hanging on for dear life, neonatal babies are not any different than a zygote, but just in a different stage. They have not choosen to be put in the womb, or forced themselves into the "house" of a woman. It is completely the fault of those parties involved for creating this "life form", and we have become a society that now puts sex at a higher priority than this wonderful ability to create life. Pops as in abortion. [qs]Well, we should compare procedures that are similar in complexity, invasiveness, convalecence, etc. Getting one's arm sewn on after cutting it off is not even in the same ballpark as an abortion by any measure.qsAt least not from a zygotes point of view. Oh no? Please explain why. And what happens when it becomes possible to grow a zygote into a human being outside the womb? Well it obviously isn't men.why would you say that after saying that babies are for being born? wtf does that statement have to do with anything I said?
Again you have slandered me, twice in one reply, cheers.

Typing that was a waste of time, and not valid debating. It's pointless.Of course I would read, and try to understand what you write, I respect you.

Havne't you heard "Every sperm is sacred.Every sperm is great.If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate." Being a Christian I have no doubts you will have lots of other things to feel guilty about? Brian.Edited by Brian, : No reason given.

No, I have stated that elsewhere in this htread. I should have said, there would be no legal abortion.If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant or carry the responsibility of her actions that bad, she will try to do whatever is necessary, up to abandoning the baby once it is born.I must also add that the man is just as irresponsible if he allows her to do that, and not help her.

You get the thick headed award, really you do. I refuse to answer this anymore. Taken away? When did I say that? Correct! Correct, it's a privialge, of the time and place we live in. 1000 years from now, it may be even better.When I got operated on for a tumor that grew in my paradid gland, I have no idea how it got there, but when it was over, I felt I was lucky to have been able to get it removed, and never felt it was a right to have that operation. I was lucky, and it was a privilage.

That's spam spam spam spam, spammity spam! Um no? I am forgiven, because I forgive others. None of us are perfect. We are all the same.

Hey! Speak for yourself matey!Brian.

Look, I think the problem here is that you consider having a perfectly healthy (from the op) pregnancy is some kind of medical condition. It's not, it is what should happen when two fertile people have intercourse.When I pushed my girlfreind to get an abortion, it was because I did not want the responsibility of taking care of a kid, or paying child support to her. I did not want to live up to my mistake.You even said yourself, it's about body autonomy.So which is it, a medical condition, or body autonomy?Because if the woman pregnant is having a perfectly healthy pregnancy, then she does not need any medical treatment. She can have a healthy pregnancy all on her own. (of course it is better to have doctors, before you even go there).So a woman who is having a perfectly healthy pregnancy, is not sick or injured, she is just doing what evolution designed her to do (like that one?).So it is strictly about body autonomy, and woman have that, up until they say yes.