Does a woman have a right...

[maquiscat]

... To an abortion*if she is not pregnant?

I'll admit up front that this is a prelude to another thread later, but this point has to be established first. Also, I am rather on the fence with this so your arguments could be what tip me*one way or the other.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Captain Adverse]

... To an abortion*if she is not pregnant?

I'll admit up front that this is a prelude to another thread later, but this point has to be established first. Also, I am rather on the fence with this so your arguments could be what tip me*one way or the other.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I hold that a woman has a right to an abortion (up to a certain point of fetal development established by law) if she gets pregnant and chooses to do so.

It is a right that exists within the right to control ones own body regardless of whether she has gotten pregnant or not.

Still, I wonder where this is leading? :unsure13:

 

[ttwtt78640]

... To an abortion*if she is not pregnant?

I'll admit up front that this is a prelude to another thread later, but this point has to be established first. Also, I am rather on the fence with this so your arguments could be what tip me*one way or the other.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what you mean by having a right to a private good/service. I have a right to eat steak in a restaurant which elects to offer it on their menu if, and only if, I pay them for it. I have no right to make a given restaurant serve me steak (if they chose not to put that on their menu) and I have no right to have others pay for my menu choice via taxation.

 

[Carjosse]

I'm not sure what you mean by having a right to a private good/service. I have a right to eat steak in a restaurant which elects to offer it on their menu if, and only if, I pay them for it. I have no right to make a given restaurant serve me steak (if they chose not to put that on their menu) and I have no right to have others pay for my menu choice via taxation.

Think of it this way, this is how abortion can be considered a right in Canada. The Supreme Court ruled that women have a right to security of person and part of that is being able to seek out abortion, therefore the government cannot place unreasonable restrictions on access to abortion. That is my understanding anyways.

To answer the OP, I guess technically yes.

 

[maquiscat]

I'm not sure what you mean by having a right to a private good/service. I have a right to eat steak in a restaurant which elects to offer it on their menu if, and only if, I pay them for it. I have no right to make a given restaurant serve me steak (if they chose not to put that on their menu) and I have no right to have others pay for my menu choice via taxation.

I understand your point. For the purpose of the thread (since what a right is can be a whole debate unto itself), a right is something to which a law cannot be made to deny you access, although neither is the government required to provide access, to it, nor can a third party deny you access. Contextually, if a woman wanted an abortion, I, someone who is not a abortion provider, cannot do anything to prevent her from obtaining one directly. I can try to persuade her, just not outright stop her. Nor can the government make abortion illegal, but with that the government is not required to ensure that people become abortion providers nor are they required to provide funds for an abortion.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[vesper]

Women have the right within the law to choose who gets born and who doesn't. Our laws now have elevated all women to demi-god status. Time to move on with this argument and any aspect of it. Women are now demi-gods get over it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

... To an abortion*if she is not pregnant?

I'll admit up front that this is a prelude to another thread later, but this point has to be established first. Also, I am rather on the fence with this so your arguments could be what tip me*one way or the other.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

What does this mean? How do you terminate a pregnancy if one doesn’t exist?

Like picture asking if a right to bear arms applies to firearms, but the argument is in Ancient Greece. You can’t have an abortion without a pregnancy, I’m kind of confused...

 

[maquiscat]

What does this mean? How do you terminate a pregnancy if one doesn’t exist?

Like picture asking if a right to bear arms applies to firearms, but the argument is in Ancient Greece. You can’t have an abortion without a pregnancy, I’m kind of confused...

Do you have to have an abortion to have a right to one?

Also it's the right to bear arms. Despite the common use of the 2nd to cover firearms, it is not limited to that as written.
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Do you have to have an abortion to have a right to one?

Also it's the right to bear arms. Despite the common use of the 2nd to cover firearms, it is not limited to that as written.
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I don’t understand this still, this is a circular argument. I don’t believe there should be a right to an abortion except for maternal health, but since the Supreme Court found the secret ink on the constitution, there is at the very least the right to one up to the third month. Maybe more depending on state, I don’t get what your question means, if you don’t have the right to one until the minute the doctor begins the procedure and then you do, then you effectively have the right to have one. I think this is a distinction without a difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ttwtt78640]

Think of it this way, this is how abortion can be considered a right in Canada. The Supreme Court ruled that women have a right to security of person and part of that is being able to seek out abortion, therefore the government cannot place unreasonable restrictions on access to abortion. That is my understanding anyways.

To answer the OP, I guess technically yes.

I am not talking about government restriction at all. In Canada does the government pay for or subsidize abortions or simply let those who can pay for them have them from willing private providers?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I understand your point. For the purpose of the thread (since what a right is can be a whole debate unto itself), a right is something to which a law cannot be made to deny you access, although neither is the government required to provide access, to it, nor can a third party deny you access. Contextually, if a woman wanted an abortion, I, someone who is not a abortion provider, cannot do anything to prevent her from obtaining one directly. I can try to persuade her, just not outright stop her. Nor can the government make abortion illegal, but with that the government is not required to ensure that people become abortion providers nor are they required to provide funds for an abortion.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Thank you for that clarification. That, IMHO, makes providing abortions conditionally legal but does not make it a right. Can anyone start an abortion business or must they have government permission to do so? For example, I have a right to mow lawns or wash cars for money - it requires no special government permission to do so at all.

 

[Carjosse]

I am not talking about government restriction at all. In Canada does the government pay for or subsidize abortions or simply let those who can pay for them have them from willing private providers?

They are covered by provincial health coverage just like any other medical procedure including those done at private clinics.*

*For more specific information by province see here.

 

[AGENT J]

Women have the right within the law to choose who gets born and who doesn't. Our laws now have elevated all women to demi-god status. Time to move on with this argument and any aspect of it. Women are now demi-gods get over it.

Women have no such right LMAO another one of your lies/ignorant claims bite the dust. Why post such a blatant lie?

 

[Lursa]

... To an abortion*if she is not pregnant?

I'll admit up front that this is a prelude to another thread later, but this point has to be established first. Also, I am rather on the fence with this so your arguments could be what tip me*one way or the other.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Does a person without the mental capacity to communicate have a right to their First Amendment rights?

Do Americans who own no guns have a right to own a gun?

Does a person who chooses not to vote have the right to vote?

If there are no elections, do Americans lose their right to vote?

SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution recognize our rights and there's nothing in there saying we lose the right to exercise a right if we never need or choose to use it.

Btw, there's no right 'to have an abortion.' But there are many rights of women that would be violated by the use of govt force to prevent us from having one.

 

[ProgressiveCON]

... To an abortion*if she is not pregnant?

I'll admit up front that this is a prelude to another thread later, but this point has to be established first. Also, I am rather on the fence with this so your arguments could be what tip me*one way or the other.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

umm seems pretty simple to me, I will agree with the poster above me^, abortion is not a right, preventing abortion infringes other rights.

However, if abortion is a right, yeah, the right to abortion exists even if you can't have one. Seems fairly simple. Government can't infringe my free speech rights whether or not I use it.

 

[ProgressiveCON]

Does a person without the mental capacity to communicate have a right to their First Amendment rights?

Do Americans who own no guns have a right to own a gun?

Does a person who chooses not to vote have the right to vote?

If there are no elections, do Americans lose their right to vote?

SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution recognize our rights and there's nothing in there saying we lose the right to exercise a right if we never need or choose to use it.

Btw, there's no right 'to have an abortion.' But there are many rights of women that would be violated by the use of govt force to prevent us from having one.

Yes to everything,

AND

"Does a person who chooses not to vote have the right to vote?"

Yes, because you need a right to vote so you can choose not to vote, it's not a choice if you can't vote.

 

[Dragonfly]

... To an abortion*if she is not pregnant?

Kinda like asking if men have a "right to an abortion" isn't it?

 

[ProgressiveCON]

Kinda like asking if men have a "right to an abortion" isn't it?

Nah, since it's not possible for men to have an abortion. Abortion at least has to be a possibility, even if not a present one.

It's like asking if a tree has a right to free speech.

 

[Dragonfly]

Nah, since it's not possible for men to have an abortion. Abortion at least has to be a possibility, even if not a present one.

It's like asking if a tree has a right to free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Beatie

I know, that's kind of a stretch...

 

[maquiscat]

Thank you for that clarification. That, IMHO, makes providing abortions conditionally legal but does not make it a right. Can anyone start an abortion business or must they have government permission to do so? For example, I have a right to mow lawns or wash cars for money - it requires no special government permission to do so at all.

When we are having local governments shut down kids' lemonade stands because they various permits and such, then do we really have a right to engage such transactions? And there is a difference between rights and regulations, of which the existence of the latter does tend to muddy the waters a bit. How far can a right be regulated?

Basically I am.looking at whether we continue to possess a right if we do not have the capacity to exercise it. Do I still have a right to bear arms even if I can't physically wield any?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Does a person without the mental capacity to communicate have a right to their First Amendment rights?

Do Americans who own no guns have a right to own a gun?

Does a person who chooses not to vote have the right to vote?

If there are no elections, do Americans lose their right to vote?

SCOTUS interpretations of the Constitution recognize our rights and there's nothing in there saying we lose the right to exercise a right if we never need or choose to use it.

Btw, there's no right 'to have an abortion.' But there are many rights of women that would be violated by the use of govt force to prevent us from having one.

Those questions were others that I had thought of when postulating my thought line. Abortion ended up being the one I choose.
By your logic then, abortion could be made illegal with no violation of right, yet that never seems to be the argument. So what rights are violates if abortion is made Illegal?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Yes to everything,

AND

"Does a person who chooses not to vote have the right to vote?"

Yes, because you need a right to vote so you can choose not to vote, it's not a choice if you can't vote.

I am highlighting more for the incapacity to exercise a given right, rather than the choice not to exercise it.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Kinda like asking if men have a "right to an abortion" isn't it?

Let's not jump ahead of ourselves.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[ttwtt78640]

1) When we are having local governments shut down kids' lemonade stands because they various permits and such, then do we really have a right to engage such transactions? And there is a difference between rights and regulations, of which the existence of the latter does tend to muddy the waters a bit. 2) How far can a right be regulated?

3) Basically I am.looking at whether we continue to possess a right if we do not have the capacity to exercise it. 4) Do I still have a right to bear arms even if I can't physically wield any?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

1) No, at that point it becomes a state issued privilege.

2) To the extent that exercising that right does harm to others, then it becomes a crime. You have a right to swing your fist through the air but that right stops where my nose begins.

3) That depends on what is preventing its exercise. Some assert that if "access to" something which costs money payable to a private party and you lack that money then you are being denied the capacity to exercise that right - I disagree with that idea. IMHO, so long as the financial barrier is not being imposed by the government, e.g. by imposing a licensing or registration fee then you have that right. Once the restriction is government imposed then it becomes a state issued privilege. For example, if a "user fee" is being imposed by the government to enter a national park then such entry is no longer a right - it has become a privilege granted (issued?) only after paying a government imposed fee.

4) See #1 and #3.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Those questions were others that I had thought of when postulating my thought line. Abortion ended up being the one I choose.
By your logic then, abortion could be made illegal with no violation of right, yet that never seems to be the argument. So what rights are violates if abortion is made Illegal?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

According to the SCOTUS, the right to privacy.