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.
Can someone please help me out by defining what these "rights" are supposed to be that get bandied about all the time? I understand what a legal right is, but I think that it's not being used in that sense.
If you would refer to my previous posts, you'll see why legally, it doesn't matter whether one considers the fetus "human" or not. It's irrelevent.
The rights are from the old ideas that man has from God guarenteed law that he can not be murdered or this or that.
The rights of man are from God or nature and are above any human gov't or any human beings will to oppose them.
These rights are noted by nations and then fleshed out.
They must be obeyed.
I looked and the line of reasoning is bad.
Your misunderstanding that peoples rights to life are not from the bov't but from God. The gov't just recognizes this fact and agrees that all people have a right to life.
This right trumps the special case where one person lives in another.
To deny the foetus life because the mother wants her blood for herself is to deny the rights of life of all mankind.
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
The claim for abortion is on the point that the foetus is not a kid. Not that the unborn kid has no right to life
I looked and the line of reasoning is bad.
Your misunderstanding that peoples rights to life are not from the bov't but from God. The gov't just recognizes this fact and agrees that all people have a right to life.
This right trumps the special case where one person lives in another.
To deny the foetus life because the mother wants her blood for herself is to deny the rights of life of all mankind.
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
The claim for abortion is on the point that the foetus is not a kid.
Not that the unborn kid has no right to life
"Cannot" be murdered? But he gets murdered all the time. What does it mean to say that God has made a guaranteed law that he can't?
How do you know what they are?
Does the Bible use a word meaning "rights" in this sense? It seems to me that direct moral injunctions in Scripture are always framed in terms of the agent. It says that you mustn't kill people; it doesn't say that people have a right not to be killed. (And thank goodness, because otherwise God would be violating rights left, right, and centre in the Old Testament.)
How do the nations know what they are?
How do you obey a right?
Gods laws are the source of our rights. As the American constitution, I think, says they are SELF-EVIDENT.
The rights of man are based on the rights fromGod. Now called nature. The gov'ts of men note the rights of man and enforce them. The great ideas are the ones most evident.
Simple
How do you keep that reasoning from working both ways? Your right to swing your fist ends where my uterus begins.
If one doesn't acknowledge each individual's right to bodily sovereignty, or holds that another person's right to life trumps an individual's right to choose what happens to his own body, that justifies things like mandatory blood, marrow, and tissue donations, or even the forced "donation" of redundant organs (you don't need two kidneys). Where is the line drawn? When does a person get to say, "No, it's my body, and I don't consent to this"?
A fetus cannot have more rights than a born person. And as no born person has any rights to another's blood or organs- even to save their life- a fetus cannot either, without the woman's consent.
Dead on!A fetus's right to life ends once it intrudes on the woman's body.
That's not my claim. As you can see, that point is irrelevent.
It does have a right to life. It just cannot use that right to violate the rights of another, when that other person doesn't want it there. No born person can use their right to life to demand blood or organs from another person to save their life, as it infringes on the right's of another person to their own body. And this is why we see many people on organ waitlists dying every year. For want of a kidney. Or bone marrrow. We cannot force people to donate against their will as it's a violation of their rights, even though it could save another's life.
Your wrong. The right to life is inaleinable.
One can not be killed for the minor desires of another.
As elsewhere I said the body parts idea is not the same. In denying ones parts one is not killing the patient. It is the disease that is. In abortion it is a intent to kill the being by denying parts.
I don't owe someone my parts but I'm not bringing their death. Not my plan.
In abortion it is a direct plan to kill the being.
Therefore a direct plan to deny their right to life.
The right to life of a human trumps any other right due to its importance. One can't lose such a thing for some abstract concept.
We are talking about a human being. very important thing
Your right. My right to swing my fist ends at your body. Thats what i said.
Right. Everyone has bodily sovereignty (as you put it). The child in the womb included.
RobertByers said:Your body assets thing is not accurate. In that case you are not killing the person but simply withholding things from it. It is not the motive tokill and what kills is a natural problem. You are not the source of the death decision. The disease is.
RobertByers said:Yes a persons right to life trumps your right to control your body.
RobertByers said:Its a case where one body is within another. Strange but true.
RobertByers said:its like your saying ITS my body and i can throw it against someone on a bridge if I want to.
RobertByers said:The reality is that a human being is living within the mother. To kill that child , save for serious self defence, is the murder of a human being. im not saying, and don't, that pro-choicers believe its a child. Non belief means non consent to murder. Just a form of manslaughter.
RobertByers said:The right to life is inaleinable. The right to control ones body isn't and is secondary to such a foundational concept of our right to life.
Your wrong. The right to life is inaleinable. One can not be killed for the minor desires of another.
RobertByers said:As elsewhere I said the body parts idea is not the same. In denying ones parts one is not killing the patient. It is the disease that is. In abortion it is a intent to kill the being by denying parts.
RobertByers said:I don't owe someone my parts but I'm not bringing their death. Not my plan. In abortion it is a direct plan to kill the being. Therefore a direct plan to deny their right to life.
RobertByers said:The right to life of a human trumps any other right due to its importance. One can't lose such a thing for some abstract concept.
RobertByers said:We are talking about a human being. very important thing
You persist in trivializing the experience of the woman in this scenario, and part of me can't help but think that it's because the scenario is one that will never affect you directly.
No. It doesn't.The right to life of a human trumps any other right due to its importance.
No. It doesn't.
The right to life is a right of non-interference. You have the right to keep living, and I don't have the right to interfere with that, unless you start interfering with my rights. But that doesn't give you the right to, say, steal my food to keep living, or to force me to donate a kidney to keep you living.
Also, if someone were to attack me, their right to life wouldn't prevent me from having the right to defend myself, even if I needed to kill them to do this. Thus the right to life doesn't trump all other rights. Once someone starts interfering with my rights, their rights can be violated to stop this interference, if necessary.
The real question, I feel, would be "is abortion necessary?"
I can easily answer this (since I asked it *wink*), by saying that all humans have the right to bodily integrity (which includes the right to deny use of their body to other humans and organisms), and there is no other way to immediately end the use of a woman's body by an unborn human until medical viability, other than abortion.
Thus, I feel that abortion must necessarily be kept legal, until medical viability, or some other option that allows the unborn human to be removed but doesn't result in its death.
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?