Article - Why I Changed my Position - (Pro Choice to Pro Life) [W:104,313]

[Henrin]

Not unless people are attracted to the same sex. Mutual masturbation, oral, anal, toys, well the list goes on and on. The point is pregnancy can be prevented if the couple is willing to explore the many options available to prevent it. Abstinence is only one option and, no ... I'm not referring to same gender sex. Hehe, just so you don't confuse this again.

Ok, but that stuff isn't going to be stuck too.

 

[Lursa]

Because it involves human rights violations. Sure, abortion can be the responsible choice ... after the fact. This doesn't change that human right violations are taking place.

Who says? How is this any more than your opinion or personal belief?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Because it involves human rights violations.
2.) Sure, abortion can be the responsible choice ... after the fact.
3.) This doesn't change that human right violations are taking place.

1.) no it doesnt human rights orgs disagree with your meanignless OPINION
2.) correct
3.) there are factually no human rights violations taking place, objective human rights are against banning and are pro-choice

so like i said your OPINION is no better than theirs so you dont get to force yours on them. THAT would be the FACTUAL human rights violation.
Seems you might want to study actual facts on this topic many of your posts prover you dont know what the legal and human rights and the laws are regarding this topic.

 

[Henrin]

The other good thing that came of it was that she continued her life unburdened by an unwanted pregnancy or an unwanted child or a fragile husband.

He had mental problems to work through like you did. The difference between you two is that instead of going to drugs like he did, you decided to become a slut. Yes summer, I remember everything. I would recommend you keep your judgments out of your posts.

 

[QuantumDuty]

How is it a moot point? Self-determination, a future...could certainly be considered a right. Certainly pursuit of happiness. Does the unborn deserve this more than the born?

This has been a very odd exchange:

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are certainly relevant ... so long as these rights aren't denied to others in the pursuit of. What your saying are unborn human lives don't deserve these rights simply because they haven't been born yet. You view them to be irrelevant. The unborn were created by those who want these rights for themselves, and they demand the right to deny these rights to their own unborn offspring. This isn't based on human rights, but on self desire of a potential future that may never be achieved at all. It's based on self want, not on human rights nor on human value. Self value certainly, but not human value.

 

[QuantumDuty]

How is it a moot point? Self-determination, a future...could certainly be considered a right. Certainly pursuit of happiness. Does the unborn deserve this more than the born?

This has been a very odd exchange:

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are certainly relevant ... so long as these rights aren't denied to others in the pursuit of. What your saying are unborn human lives don't deserve these rights simply because they haven't been born yet. You view them to be irrelevant. The unborn were created by those who want these rights for themselves, but demand these same rights are denied to their own unborn offspring. This isn't based on human rights, but on self desire of a potential future that may never be achieved at all. It's based on self want, not on human rights nor on human value. Self value certainly, but not human value.

 

[Lursa]

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are certainly relevant ... so long as these rights aren't denied to others in the pursuit of. What your saying are unborn human lives don't deserve these rights simply because they haven't been born yet. You view them to be irrelevant. The unborn were created by those who want these rights for themselves, and they demand the right to deny these rights to their own unborn offspring. This isn't based on human rights, but on self desire of a potential future that may never be achieved at all. It's based on self want, not on human rights nor on human value. Self value certainly, but not human value.

So...does the woman deserve them? Because you are saying she has to give up hers. Why? You claim they are equal.

If so, then they should be treated equally. That is not possible. As I've pointed out.

And why are you judging people's 'self want?' I've never heard of that but I'm pretty sure the govt has no business deciding that for people.

What you seem to be doing is blaming people for having sex that results in pregnancy. In other words, you are using the child as punishment. "It's their fault and they deserve it."

IMO, that's rather dehumanizing for the unborn.

 

[QuantumDuty]

The other good thing that came of it was that she continued her life unburdened by an unwanted pregnancy or an unwanted child or a fragile husband.

At the expense of another humans right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. After the fact it may have been the responsible choice for her, but two other relevant parties had to pay for her choice. One with their own life, and the other with the burden of losing their own child.

 

[AGENT J]

At the expense of another humans right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. After the fact it may have been the responsible choice for her, but two other relevant parties had to pay for her choice. One with their own life, and the other with the burden of losing their own child.

the are not two other relevant parties, no matter how many times you repeat that lie it will simply be wrong. The man is not a relevant party in the abortion debate based on law and rights. lol
You also ignore the fact that taking away her decision would force her to risk her life agsint her will violating her current legal and human rights.

 

[QuantumDuty]

So...does the woman deserve them? Because you are saying she has to give up hers. Why? You claim they are equal.

Yes the woman deserves these same rights, just not at the expense of another's.

If so, then they should be treated equally. That is not possible. As I've pointed out.

And why are you judging people's 'self want?' I've never heard of that but I'm pretty sure the govt has no business deciding that for people.

What you seem to be doing is blaming people for having sex that results in pregnancy. In other words, you are using the child as punishment. "It's their fault and they deserve it."

IMO, that's rather dehumanizing for the unborn.

If you're going to argue from the premise of human rights, then all humans must have the same rights. If not, you're arguing for self desire alone, which isn't an argument when a life must be taken to obtain what your desire. We all have wants, goals, and dreams but when our wants, goals, and dreams require a human sacrifice, you throw basic human rights out the window. What's dehumanizing is the view that humans have no inherent value. I rather disagree, but I value all human life not just my own.

 

[Henrin]

At the expense of another humans right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. After the fact it may have been the responsible choice for her, but two other relevant parties had to pay for her choice. One with their own life, and the other with the burden of losing their own child.

From the sounds of it there is a pretty good chance it would at the very least put her life on hold. Still though. Can I ask you something? If you had to pick between your child and your career, would you pick your career? Is it just me or is picking your career a really weird choice?

 

[AGENT J]

Yes the woman deserves these same rights, just not at the expense of another's.



If you're going to argue from the premise of human rights, then all humans must have the same rights. If not, you're arguing for self desire alone, which isn't an argument when a life must be taken to obtain what your desire. We all have wants, goals, and dreams but when our wants, goals, and dreams require a human sacrifice, you throw basic human rights out the window. What's dehumanizing is the view that humans have no inherent value. I rather disagree, but I value all human life not just my own.

you keep mentioning this failed argument and not listing any of the FACTUAL rights you are talking about. sorry you dont just get to make them up.

 

[QuantumDuty]

the are not two other relevant parties, no matter how many times you repeat that lie it will simply be wrong. The man is not a relevant party in the abortion debate based on law and rights. lol
You also ignore the fact that taking away her decision would force her to risk her life agsint her will violating her current legal and human rights.

Men are irrelevant now? I missed that memo. Do men do anything to help create a child? If the man is irrelevant in this, then he shouldn't be responsible for child support given a woman has a child he doesn't want. It's the same difference, only no one has to die. The only difference is a monetary one. I've stated to you directly that I would like woman to retain this choice when a valid threat to life is present.

 

[QuantumDuty]

From the sounds of it there is a pretty good chance it would at the very least put her life on hold. Still though. Can I ask you something? If you had to pick between your child and your career, would you pick your career? Is it just me or is picking your career a really weird choice?

Exactly! It makes no sense to me either.

 

[QuantumDuty]

you keep mentioning this failed argument and not listing any of the FACTUAL rights you are talking about. sorry you dont just get to make them up.

Could human rights possibly still be under development? Are you content with where human rights are at this present moment? You're the one stating all the so called "facts". None of which are in reality, but you're free to believe what you want. According to you, humans have no inherent value, which makes the entire concept of human rights moot. Not just that, but your idea of human rights are actually woman's rights that fail to take into consideration the men who helped create those you and others deem irrelevant to the discussion, when they're the ones dying for the rights you're supporting. Face it, this isn't about human rights at all. It never was. It has always been about woman's rights, which are terribly one sided as they stand.

 

[Summerwind]

At the expense of another humans right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. After the fact it may have been the responsible choice for her, but two other relevant parties had to pay for her choice. One with their own life, and the other with the burden of losing their own child.

One that had no concept of it's position, and one that seems awfully selfish as well, so oh well.

 

[Lursa]

Yes the woman deserves these same rights, just not at the expense of another's.



If you're going to argue from the premise of human rights, then all humans must have the same rights. If not, you're arguing for self desire alone, which isn't an argument when a life must be taken to obtain what your desire. We all have wants, goals, and dreams but when our wants, goals, and dreams require a human sacrifice, you throw basic human rights out the window. What's dehumanizing is the view that humans have no inherent value. I rather disagree, but I value all human life not just my own.

Who says? That is your personal belief. Not everyone believes that.

And you ignore that to recognize rights for the unborn, you must grossly infringe on the rights of other humans...women. How are you justifying that? It is not equal.

Rights are not 'wants and needs,' they are rights....some are inalienable and some are civil. A right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not the same as 'wants.'

Can you please define 'inherent value?'

 

[Dragonfly]

What I can no longer support is a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy at their sole unrestricted discretion.

Shocking that a man thinks this way. :roll:

Tell me something there Mr. Cool-Story-Bro - can you ever get pregnant? Ever? By accident? Rape? Ever?

 

[Lursa]

Could human rights possibly still be under development? Are you content with where human rights are at this present moment? You're the one stating all the so called "facts". None of which are in reality, but you're free to believe what you want. According to you, humans have no inherent value, which makes the entire concept of human rights moot. Not just that, but your idea of human rights are actually woman's rights that fail to take into consideration the men who helped create those you and others deem irrelevant to the discussion, when they're the ones dying for the rights you're supporting. Face it, this isn't about human rights at all. It never was. It has always been about woman's rights, which are terribly one sided as they stand.

SInce you feel they are 'one-sided,' please explain...specifically...how the unborn and women can be treated equally under the law in the US?

And the Constitution does not mention 'human rights.' It recognized equal rights for men. Our courts had to go and specifically examine and then decide that blacks and women also were equal and recognized their rights as equals.

The courts did the same for the unborn. And even with all that historical context and knowing the biology of human development...decided not to recognize rights for the unborn.

To change that, what compelling reasons would you give the courts to reconsider their decision?

 

[Dragonfly]

By the way - the title of the thread starts with the word "article".

Is this some kind of a cut-n-paste job with no link to the place where it came from?

 

[QuantumDuty]

Who says? That is your personal belief. Not everyone believes that.

And you ignore that to recognize rights for the unborn, you must grossly infringe on the rights of other humans...women. How are you justifying that? It is not equal.

Rights are not 'wants and needs,' they are rights....some are inalienable and some are civil. A right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not the same as 'wants.'

Can you please define 'inherent value?'

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:

We have the right to life (everyone of us) the right to liberty (everyone of us) and the right to pursue happiness (everyone of us). While our right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness applies to everyone, it applies only so long as these rights do not deny these same rights to others. This issue rests solely on human person-hood and inherent human value.


Inherent:

existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute


Value:

to consider with respect to worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance.


Inherent human value:

The permanent and inseparable qualities of worth, excellence, usefulness and importance of all human entities.


Either all human entities fall into the above category, or human value is based on the fancy of inherently valueless beings and therefore becomes a moot argument for human rights. What gives humans value? What we do? How we look? Our present abilities? Or who we are inherently? Do humans have value or not?

 

[QuantumDuty]

SInce you feel they are 'one-sided,' please explain...specifically...how the unborn and women can be treated equally under the law in the US?

And the Constitution does not mention 'human rights.' It recognized equal rights for men. Our courts had to go and specifically examine and then decide that blacks and women also were equal and recognized their rights as equals.

The courts did the same for the unborn. And even with all that historical context and knowing the biology of human development...decided not to recognize rights for the unborn.

To change that, what compelling reasons would you give the courts to reconsider their decision?

All men has been defined as you suggested, to include all mankind (humanity). The constitution ensures these equal rights to every human entity in this nation. Pro choice argues under the premise of basic human rights. Either way, neither are being honored. It's one sided in that woman currently hold an unequaled power they call a "right" to terminate every unborn offspring conceived by them, which results in three parties being involved in that choice. A woman is able to exercise this power regardless of one's lack of voice (who will die) and regardless of another's opposition to the termination of the life they helped create.

 

[Serenity]

Your unborn child was not killed. It was not your child, it was her zygote/embryo/fetus (ZEF) and it was hers to decide to what would happen to it.

It was not just his child it was their unborn child. Men are told it’s not their choice, not their body, and not their business and legally that is correct. A woman can legally deprive a man of his desire to become a parent to his unborn child and at the opposite end of the debate force him to become one against his will. She decided she didn't want it so she disposed of it. As is her right. That being said, it's ludicrous to suggest that it is not their unborn baby.

 

[QuantumDuty]

The courts did the same for the unborn. And even with all that historical context and knowing the biology of human development...decided not to recognize rights for the unborn.

To change that, what compelling reasons would you give the courts to reconsider their decision?

Inherent human value based on the pro - choice argument of basic human rights and the denial of these rights to unborn human life.

 

[QuantumDuty]

By the way - the title of the thread starts with the word "article".

Is this some kind of a cut-n-paste job with no link to the place where it came from?

No, I put article in the title because of the length of my post.