News Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed

[out of whack]

Or does one only have rights that are explicitly provided by some document or by some majority of others?

In practice I would say that this is often the case. What you think is your obvious right can very well be illegal, if not where you are today then where you may be next week. It's certainly prudent to get rights that are important to you in writing.

 

[Contrapositive]

Well, if part of your body is "property" and not "person" then you should be free to choose how to handle it instead of having others impose their will upon you.

Actually, many of the laws in place today would suggest you do not have the right to do whatever you want with your own body. Doing drugs illegally would be an example. But, just a hundred years ago, you basically did have the right to do whatever you wanted with your own body. As much as I hate the idea, I think the constitution and the founding fathers would probably agree with legal abortions.

 

[Evo]

Exactly. So why bring up this 'freedom of choice' stuff?

We wouldn't have to if "pro-lifers" would stop trying to tell others that they have to agree to their beliefs. Pro-lifers=no choice, what we say is right!

Wrong.

 

[Hurkyl]

We wouldn't have to if "pro-lifers" would stop trying to tell others that they have to agree to their beliefs. Pro-lifers=no choice, what we say is right!

Wrong.

I don't follow -- because the "pro-lifers" are arguing their case, you feel compelled to bring up an entirely irrelevant point?

 

[out of whack]

Actually, many of the laws in place today would suggest you do not have the right to do whatever you want with your own body. Doing drugs illegally would be an example.

True, although the principle at play is to forbid goods that are unduly detrimental to society, not just to dictate how you use your own body. A better example is prostitution, another hot topic where the harm to society is being debated. In the case of abortion, detriment to society is certainly not obvious. Unwanted births are a bigger social problem.

 

[Evo]

I don't follow -- because the "pro-lifers" are arguing their case, you feel compelled to bring up an entirely irrelevant point?

"Pro Choice"? The right of the mother to choose? How is that irrelevant?

 

[GleefulNihilism]

Exactly. So why bring up this 'freedom of choice' stuff?

Because there exist multiple valid arguements for a pro-choice POV. 2 seen in this thread have been "When is does it count as a human being?" and "What about the rights of someone who is definitely a human being?". The main reason I am pro-choice is the second reason. For others, the main reason is the first reason.

As for my opinion on the first reason: No, I don't consider abortion murder. Murder to me implies a capacity for higher conscious thought in the victim which is not only not present in the unborn but physically impossible, as in the nessecary parts don't exist yet, until well into the 7th month of pregnancy. If a human being refuses to use their capacity for higher conscious thought they are equal to lower animals in my mind, but out of respect for that capacity I would stand for them. Show me they are capable of higher conscious thought and I'll consider switching sides, but not before.

But like I said the main reason I'm pro-choice is that I'm not about to butcher the rights of any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner for something that may become a human being eventually, and even then has no guarantee of a positive impact on humanity.

 

[Hurkyl]

"Pro Choice"? The right of the mother to choose? How is that irrelevant?

If someone was arguing that your right to free speech needed to be balanced against the safety of the masses, and so you should not be allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre... would you consider "Free speech. 'nuff said!" to be a relevant response?


AFAIK, the "pro-lifers" have always been an argument against murder -- you have the right to choose, you just don't have the right to murder.

It's like the popular "pro-choicer" approach is not to participate in the discussion; they, like you, simply want to completely ignore what the pro-lifers are saying, and instead pretend that they are trying to strike freedom of choice from the constitution.


If you think that abortion is not murder then fine, say that. But don't pretend that isn't what the "pro-lifers" are generally arguing. Even the phrase "pro-choice" is a denial to acknowledge what the issue is.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

If someone was arguing that your right to free speech needed to be balanced against the safety of the masses, and so you should not be allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre... would you consider "Free speech. 'nuff said!" to be a relevant response?


AFAIK, the "pro-lifers" have always been arguing that freedoms need to be balanced against the rights of others. They have never tried to argue that a woman shouldn't have freedom of choice; she just shouldn't have the freedom to murder.

Yes, I would consider that an adequite defense. I'll agree with you that it's rude and not something that should be done, but you have to expressly prove that the guy yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater did so with the express purpose of harming others before I'd even consider legal reprocussions. If he yelled "Fire!" out of a poorly planned piece of performance art for example I would not charge him with anything criminal. You'd be free to file a civil lawsuit, nothing says it doesn't go both ways, but the artist wouldn't see a prison cell if I had anything to say about it. Of course with a name like "Gleeful Nihilism" I bet that's kind of expected.

As for your second paragraph, I'm just going to sit back and laugh. "Women's bodies are considered the property of her husband in the Bible and our religion says a good wife is completely subservant to her husband at all times, but we have never said women are lesser human beings then men." Lol. Good One.

 

[Hurkyl]

Because there exist multiple valid arguements for a pro-choice POV. 2 seen in this thread have been "When is does it count as a human being?" and "What about the rights of someone who is definitely a human being?". The main reason I am pro-choice is the second reason. For others, the main reason is the first reason.
...
But like I said the main reason I'm pro-choice is that I'm not about to butcher the rights of any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner for something that may become a human being eventually, and even then has no guarantee of a positive impact on humanity.

The question has never been about whether "any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner" has rights. The question has always been whether or not "something that may become a human being eventually" has rights.

Incidentally, your statement is odd -- what if the woman wasn't contributing to society in a positive manner?

 

[Astronuc]

In practice I would say that this is often the case. What you think is your obvious right can very well be illegal, if not where you are today then where you may be next week. It's certainly prudent to get rights that are important to you in writing.

However, the authors of the US Constitution maintained that "all men" (if taken literally excludes women) were endowed by certain inalienable rights, whether or not it was written. The only reason to right these rights into law is to 'ensure' these rights, rather than grant them. On the other hand, there were rights like property rights that were granted, and these rights could also be rescinded.

 

[out of whack]

I don't follow the objection to pro-choice arguments. Of course legal restrictions of any kind reduce our choices. Pro-lifers lobby to grant human rights to what is not yet human. If they succeed, this will infringe on the rights of a woman to choose how to treat her own body. If some other group succeeded in making blood transfusions illegal because their faith says it's wrong, this would also infringe on the rights of others to choose a medical option. We lose the choices available to us when we make them illegal. Pro-choice tries to prevent this loss.

 

[out of whack]

However, the authors of the US Constitution maintained that "all men" (if taken literally excludes women) were endowed by certain inalienable rights, whether or not it was written.

I'm sure this particular group of men believed in these specific rights. A second group of men might have picked a different set of unspoken inalienable rights that they also would put in writing forthwith before a third group of men take them away in favor of their own set.

 

[mheslep]

I don't follow the objection to pro-choice arguments. Of course legal restrictions of any kind reduce our choices. Pro-lifers lobby to grant human rights to what is not yet human. ...

Thats being a bit cavalier what is or is not human. Could you define further?

 

[out of whack]

Thats being a bit cavalier what is or is not human. Could you define further?

I discussed that already. See post #51. As always, your mileage may vary.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't follow the objection to pro-choice arguments. Of course legal restrictions of any kind reduce our choices. Pro-lifers lobby to grant human rights to what is not yet human. If they succeed, this will infringe on the rights of a woman to choose how to treat her own body. If some other group succeeded in making blood transfusions illegal because their faith says it's wrong, this would also infringe on the rights of others to choose a medical option. We lose the choices available to us when we make them illegal. Pro-choice tries to prevent this loss.

The formal objection is that the usual pro-choice argument simply ignores the discussion.

Pro-choicer: "I have rights!"
Pro-lifer: "Yes, you do. But so do others; we have to balance your rights against theirs."
Pro-choicer: "I have rights!"


Some pro-choicers actually join the discussion and argue that the fetus isn't human, or shouldn't have any rights. Or they may argue that the mother's rights are more important than the fetus's rights. These kinds of things are where the heart of the issue lies. Those who put merely argue that women have rights have missed the point entirely.



And some comments specific to what you said:

Do you consider this different (in a relevant way) from it being illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? To murder an adult? To own a slave?

"Infringe" is not the word I would have used in any of those examples -- if you are using "infringe" that liberally, then the negative connotation usually associated with the word doesn't apply.

 

[Evo]

If you think that abortion is not murder then fine, say that. But don't pretend that isn't what the "pro-lifers" are generally arguing. Even the phrase "pro-choice" is a denial to acknowledge what the issue is.

Of course I don't consider it murder. I'm pro-choice and I've heard plenty of rhetoric from "pro-lifers" (I work in an office of born again christians and actually, I can't remember a single one bringing up murder specifically. They bring up things like "if you have sex, then you should suffer the consequences". That God doesn't allow premarital sex, blah, blah, blah. It's about the fact that it goes against their moral and religious beliefs. They would allow the mother to be murdered to save a fetus that might not even live, such as in the case of when the unborn fetus is putting the mother's life in jeopardy. I'm not saying all are that bad, but a lot are.

And it is simply a choice to abort an embryo or non-viable fetus as far as I am concerned. And I'm for protecting that choice.

What really angers me is that they want to force all these women to have unwanted children, but they don't do anything about responsibility for that unwanted child. What do they think is going to happen to all of these unwanted children if abortion becomes illegal? And do they really think that making it illegal is going to stop abortion? It means the rich can afford to have it done privately and the poor will suffer at the hands of back alley abortonists.

 

[out of whack]

Do you consider this different (in a relevant way) from it being illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, or to murder one's father, or to own a slave?

Yeah...
1. The yelling thing has a negative impact on a bunch of people.
2. The killing thing has a negative impact on your father.
3. The slave thing has a negative impact on the slave.

These are all people. They are all protected against such abuse. Again, it goes to the definition of "people", as I was talking about in post #51.

"Infringe" is not the word I would have used

You can replace it with "go against" if you don't like my wording.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

The question has never been about whether "any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner" has rights. The question has always been whether or not "something that may become a human being eventually" has rights.

Incidentally, your statement is odd -- what if the woman wasn't contributing to society in a positive manner?

It's always been about that. No amount of "NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M NOT LISTENING!" Will make that go away. I grant it may never have been about that to you, and from your posts I am willing to believe that and I applaud you, but look around you man. If you consider the rights of a woman less important then, or even on par to, a pile of cells you really should take a good look about your arguement.

And I said "Any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner". It will probably seem like tricky semantics but just one is enough. Granted I'm of the opinion that the people who are genuinely contributing to huamnity in a truly positive manner are countable on one hand, but that makes them all the more important to me.

 

[DaveC426913]

"...a pile of cells...".

Good one.

 

[Cyrus]

It is a "pile of cells", nothing more. I am pro abortion all the way up to 18 years of age.

 

[BobG]

It's always been about that. No amount of "NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M NOT LISTENING!" Will make that go away. I grant it may never have been about that to you, and from your posts I am willing to believe that and I applaud you, but look around you man. If you consider the rights of a woman less important then, or even on par to, a pile of cells you really should take a good look about your arguement.

And I said "Any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner". It will probably seem like tricky semantics but just one is enough. Granted I'm of the opinion that the people who are genuinely contributing to huamnity in a truly positive manner are countable on one hand, but that makes them all the more important to me.

Your position is that rights can only exist for one pile of cells? Either the adult pile of cells or the infant pile of cells. I think it's more about conflicting rights. Having to carry someone around in your body is a major imposition on a woman's rights, but doesn't have as big an impact on her rights as abortion has on a fetus. Forcing a boater to tow a stranded boat back to shore even if the tow will take so long the boater has to cancel his fishing trip is an imposition on the boater's rights, but it is international maritime law (although losing a day of fishing is obviously not on a par with pregnancy - and nations have definitely pushed to edge of maritime law and beyond when the stranded boat is full of refugees that no one particularly wants).

It really is two issues: when does a person officially become human and have some rights and how do you handle the conflict between two people's rights when they're in opposition to each other.

By the way, if you think that out of 6.6 billion people, only a million or less are contributing positively, you have a pretty dim view of humanity.

 

[Astronuc]

I think it's more about conflicting rights.

That is part of it. The other part is what rights or recognition society gives to a fetus, which basically comes down to the question "when does a human being become a human being".

Having to carry someone around in your body is a major imposition on a woman's rights, . . .

not to mention the imposition on a woman's health and safety.

Abstinence or celibacy would seem to be an optimal solution to abortion problem, but does anyone wish to have their personal sexuality regulated by some government institution?

 

[Hurkyl]

It's always been about that. No amount of "NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M NOT LISTENING!" Will make that go away.

The discussion has never been about that because (essentially) everyone already agrees with that.

One of the points disagreed upon is

If you consider the rights of a woman less important then, or even on par to, a pile of cells you really should take a good look about your arguement.

which is an entirely different question.

 

[out of whack]

Hurkyl: I tried to respond to your PM a few times without success. It's alright though, I think the main points we wanted to make have been made already. But tell me if you wanted me to directly address a specific section and I will.

 

[mheslep]

It is a "pile of cells", nothing more. I am pro abortion all the way up to 18 years of age.

http://datacore.sciflicks.com/soylent_green/sounds/soylent_green_people.wav"

 

[GleefulNihilism]

Your position is that rights can only exist for one pile of cells? Either the adult pile of cells or the infant pile of cells. . . .


. . .By the way, if you think that out of 6.6 billion people, only a million or less are contributing positively, you have a pretty dim view of humanity.

No, I mean a blastocyst is literally a pile of cells. The adult at least has some interanal logic to the arrangement of their cells but a blastocyst/zygote is a gooey ball of organic mush that just so happens to have the ability to possibly become a human being one day if everyting lines up just right, and it doesn't more often then it does. To give something full human rights when what makes us human is not only not present but physically impossible for it to have, at the expense of someone who has actually could be gloriusly human, stickes me as a bad parody.


As for my views on humanity, yes. Most of us- and I include myself in this- are greedy, prejudical, self-deluded, stupid apes who spend their days clawing and raping their way to the top of a the pile of **** they've turned into just so they can do it again tomarrow.

But at least the joke that is life has one of those uplifting punchlines. Scattered throughout the species are the human beings that make it all worth it. The ones who really dream and think, who refuse to let petty prejudices fears and prejudices make their decisions for them. The ones who make the world better just by existing. These are the people that are gloriously human, and the funniest part is they are so rare and will look so normal that you miss them if you blink. And I'll be damned if one of them suffers because one of you have a near-sexual fixation of a formless blob.

 

[BobG]

No, I mean a blastocyst is literally a pile of cells. The adult at least has some interanal logic to the arrangement of their cells but a blastocyst/zygote is a gooey ball of organic mush that just so happens to have the ability to possibly become a human being one day if everyting lines up just right, and it doesn't more often then it does. To give something full human rights when what makes us human is not only not present but physically impossible for it to have, at the expense of someone who has actually could be gloriusly human, stickes me as a bad parody.


As for my views on humanity, yes. Most of us- and I include myself in this- are greedy, prejudical, self-deluded, stupid apes who spend their days clawing and raping their way to the top of a the pile of **** they've turned into just so they can do it again tomarrow.

But at least the joke that is life has one of those uplifting punchlines. Scattered throughout the species are the human beings that make it all worth it. The ones who really dream and think, who refuse to let petty prejudices fears and prejudices make their decisions for them. The ones who make the world better just by existing. These are the people that are gloriously human, and the funniest part is they are so rare and will look so normal that you miss them if you blink. And I'll be damned if one of them suffers because one of you have a near-sexual fixation of a formless blob.

That's a pretty good argument about why very early term abortions should be legal - which is why at least part of the argument has to focus on when a fetus turns into a human.

(And actually looking at most abortion laws, I'd change my answer saying I prefer stricter abortion laws. It would depend on the particular laws in a given state. Most are already pretty strict and I'd probably favor slightly less strict laws in some cases, such as serious defects that will prevent the fetus from ever developing into a productive adult, for example. Most are probably in a reasonable ball park, requiring some adjustments one way or the other. My prevalent attitude tends to be against abortion with exceptions requiring justification.)

 

[Evo]

I wonder, how many of the few that want abortions to be illegal are women that might someday be in a situation where they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy? I wonder if they were faced with carrying an unwanted child to term if they might not change their minds.

 

[DaveC426913]

I wonder, how many of the few that want abortions to be illegal are women that might someday be in a situation where they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy? I wonder if they were faced with carrying an unwanted child to term if they might not change their minds.

Quite true.

Though I'm not sure that it's in everybody's best interest to promote opinion-by-personal-experience. In that sense "how would you feel if you were..." is a form of ad hominem fallacy. It means those who will never be in that sitch can dismiss the argument outright is non-applicable.

What we really want is an argument that holds up in objective circumstances (such as one that those who never can or will have face that decision can support).

But I think you're right. I'll bet 90% of the pro-lifers either can't or don't plan to be in a sitch where they might be faced with that choice.