Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Who get's to say that that's a fundamental right that overrides all other rights involved including the developing child's right to life?... the fundamental right at stake, which is that no law, or no one person's pious convictions, should have a say in another person's right to control her own body.
No I don't view the right to control one's body as fundamental at that level - as the right from which all others flow and are secondary to, no. And I don't think a serious case has been made that it is - while simple answers suit this argument for both sides, in reality rights have to be balanced.Ebia,
What a statement. Not sure if you're playing devil's advocate here, but do you mean to say that you don't view the right to control your own body as fundamental? It seems to me that rights, if they exist at all, would have to begin with just that or none of the others would make sense.
I know, but I couldn't find a word that worked better; that left ambigous what the sentence needed to leave ambiguous. So I went with the obvious.When you speak of "the developing child's right to life," part of me suspects that you're either being deliberately spurious or you haven't fairly thought of the issue from a counter point of view. "Developing" is right, but "child" is where we should be careful.
We aren't going to resolve opinions on that one because we have different starting assumptions.Is an 8 month old fetus a child? Yes. Is a 4 month old fetus a child? Tentatively, yes. 2 months? The ground is a little shaky here. A single cell zygote? In my opinion, no. The point of division may vary but, for many people, there is one
If you really mean 'axiomatic' then no case can be made - axiomatic is axiomatic. But if we don't share the same axioms then we have something of an impass.Ebia,
No, no. You misunderstood, or I failed to communicate. I do not mean to imply that, via the right of control over one's own body, all other rights are derived by consequence. That would be nonsensical.
What I aimed to say, what I feel I did say, was that in any discussion of human rights, that particular one is axiomatic and without it all other rights would lose their meaning. This is a basic tenet of libertarian philosophy, but you say that no "serious case has been made" for it?
As far as balancing the rights of the mother and the developed fetus, we have a long way to go, but at least we agree that that's what it will take to reach a consensus.
I'm not so sure that even that is a universally accepted self-evident truth, but let that one ride for a bit.Ebia,
We're bridging the gap a bit, but let me belabor the point. I really do mean "axiomatic." I make one unavoidable leap of faith when I say this, that everyone on the planet accepts that there is such a thing as human rights, if only for themselves.
It might be self-evident to you and the stream of thought you represent, but it's certainly not universally self-evident.If that is a given, then the right of control over one's own body is a self-evident truth.
I agree. I think our conversation on the main topic kind of finished with the note "... then we are at an impass".Ebia,
This is becoming, if you haven't noticed, a tangential semantic exchange, but I don't mind if you don't.
If it's read that way I'm sorry. I'm happy that your logic makes some sense within your assumptions, what I've attempted to do is simply point out that we aren't all starting from the same assumptions. If one starts with a different set of axioms then the rest of the 'proof' has nothing to work on.I've been making an attempt to set up my statements in an order which logically leads from one point to the next, if only within my own "stream of thought," and I've tried to be careful with my choice of words while doing so. If I haven't been convincing, the fault is obviously mine. However, in return, you've chosen to refute my statements by mere assertion, providing no examples or instances under which I may be wrong.
Amongst others, with no particular priority, I guess so.Let me suggest an area on which to focus. You've conceded on "accept(ing) the system of human rights as useful improvement over any other generally accepted system so far tried." This has been an unnecessarily tremendous concession on your part, but I'm relieved you've made it. Within such a system, then, what might be considered some fundamental precepts? Would the right of control over one's own body apply?
Norswede,
No one denies the reality that some women will have objectively better reasons for aborting their babies than others but that fails to address the fundamental right at stake, which is that no law, or no one person's pious convictions, should have a say in another person's right to control her own body.
I'm glad, also disheartened, to read that, were it not for your religious beliefs, you might support a mother's right to have an abortion in certain cases. That's a start.
When you say that "in Canada, a woman can have an abortion at any time for any reason and no it's not always a painful decision for them to make," how do you know this? Don't you think there's an element of pain and of regret for every woman that has to endure an abortion procedure? I find it difficult, almost impossible, to feel otherwise, regardless of how they may conduct themselves ostensibly.
As far as teenagers using abortion as a form of birth control, I don't believe any underage girl has the right to make a decision like that without a parent's or guardian's consent. At the same time, I don't feel anyone outside her family has any right to interfere in that decision either.
Now, I have to ask a tough question, because this was the point that you claim angered you the most and because I'm genuinely ignorant on the particular topic. Who are these "millions of women that can't have children that are on waiting lists in most cases for years before they can adopt a baby?" Do they have strict requirements for the background of the babies that become available to them? Here's why I ask. Since you seem well informed on the issue, you probably know that the grand majority of abortions today, at least in the United States, are had by black and Hispanic women. What, in your honest opinion, will happen to these babies of color who, once born, are hopeful to be adopted by the "millions of women" who have been waiting for years to adopt and raise a child? I shouldn't have to tell you, but this is no time to be politically correct. It requires an honest answer because once these babies are born, as you would exclusively have it, the rest of their lives really will be at stake. To state what may be obvious, something in me says the overwhelming majority of these babies will be denied a "loving family" for no richer reason than the harshly obvious one, that they're not white babies. I have no empirical data on this, none at all. But anyone who is familiar with racism, either other people's or their own, won't flinch if something in you simply won't allow you to disagree.
But, by all means, respond.
-Tom
Who get's to say that that's a fundamental right that overrides all other rights involved including the developing child's right to life?
As for the issue of no one having the right to tell another person what to do with their body, that idea has already gone out the window. Most drugs are illegal, Prostitution is illegal although it still goes on. Polygamy is illegal, assisted suicide is illegal and the list goes on and on. The truth is, we don't have the right to choose what to do with our own bodies in many cases.
Says who? Though you'll see above that I regard the whole system of "rights" as a pragmatic compromise, not truly inherent or self-evident.Because if one denies that right, then all rights are denied.
Sorry, but I refuse to reduce the picture to convenient black and whites. The balance of considerations is different in that instance and so one might, quite reasonably, arrive at different conclusion over the two questions.Anyways, the kidney example gives a pretty good reason. Unless you want to make it legal to force people to donate organs they can live without to those who need them to live, you hold bodily integrity stronger than right to life.
I didn't place the right to life above all else, I talked about balancing conflicting rights, and about refusing to put the right to determine what happens to one's body above all other rights.If you place right to life above all else,
And, in this case, it does infringe on somebody else's right - a pretty serious one - the developing child's right to life.In the case that it infringes on someone else's right, or with out social contract (e.g. being forced to go to jail after committing a crime), then our right to our body can be limited.
And, in this case, it does infringe on somebody else's right - a pretty serious one - the developing child's right to life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?