How does one ban abortion & not violate the woman's current legal human rights?

[AGENT J]

simple question

How does one ban abortion (make it murder) and not violate the woman's current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?

now lets be very clear, im not saying one HAS to do so to justify wanting abortion banned and im not asking for reason why you think its ok to violate a womans current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?

If you think its ok to do so thats your choice and its fine by me, posters have stated why they value the woman more or the ZEF more in the past.

what im asking is there anybody that thinks they have a way to ban abortion (make it murder or not, doesnt really matter) and not violate the womans current freedoms, liberties, legal rights and human rights (if you believe in them) including her right to life.

I cant come up with a single way myself nor have i read one. Does one exist? if so please share.

 

[Ikari]

simple question

How does one ban abortion (make it murder) and not violate the woman's current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?

now lets be very clear, im not saying one HAS to do so to justify wanting abortion banned and im not asking for reason why you think its ok to violate a womans current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?

If you think its ok to do so thats your choice and its fine by me, posters have stated why they value the woman more or the ZEF more in the past.

what im asking is there anybody that thinks they have a way to ban abortion (make it murder or not, doesnt really matter) and not violate the womans current freedoms, liberties, legal rights and human rights (if you believe in them) including her right to life.

I cant come up with a single way myself nor have i read one. Does one exist? if so please share.

If a man tries to hold you at gun point, rob you, or murder you; how does allowing you to protect yourself not violate his current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including his right to life? When rights clash, the aggressor typically loses.

 

[JayDubya]

It's quite simple.

There is no such thing as a human right to an abortion. It isn't even a constitutional right or a civil right. It isn't a statutory right. It isn't a right at all.

You can't violate something that does not exist.


Ergo, you simply ban abortion, and you have not violated anyone's rights. Problem solved.

 

[Republic Now!]

If a man tries to hold you at gun point, rob you, or murder you; how does allowing you to protect yourself not violate his current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including his right to life? When rights clash, the aggressor typically loses.

I generally am okay with abortion in cases of rape or when the mother's life is being immediately threatened on the basis of self defense. I don't support the notion that abortion should be okay because you had some casual sex and don't want a kid.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)If a man tries to hold you at gun point, rob you, or murder you; how does allowing you to protect yourself not violate his current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including his right to life?
2.)When rights clash, the aggressor typically loses.

1.)so you dont have an example? i wonder if anybody does
2.) thank you for admitting that ONE always loses

 

[Ikari]

1.)so you dont have an example? i wonder if anybody does
2.) thank you for admitting that ONE always loses

That was an example. When rights clash, one side usually loses. Typically the aggressor.

 

[JayDubya]

That was an example. When rights clash, one side usually loses. Typically the aggressor.

As it should be, because aggression is evil.

 

[AGENT J]

It's quite simple.

1.)There is no such thing as a human right to an abortion.
2.) It isn't even a constitutional right or a civil right.
3.) It isn't a statutory right. It isn't a right at all.
4.) You can't violate something that does not exist.
5.) Ergo, you simply ban abortion, and you have not violated anyone's rights. Problem solved.

1.) good thing the OP doesnt say "abortion" was a human right
2.) good thing the OP doesnt say "abortion" was a legal or civil right
3.) good thing the OP doesnt say "abortion" is a statutory
4.) i agree, wonder what this has to do with the OP? oh thats right nothing
5.) 100% factual fale you violate her current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights including her right to life

thank you for exposing yourself again, guess im off ignore today, but when you are ready to stop exposing yourself as dishonest and actually answer the question instead of making up lies and fantasy i look forward to your answer

now to give you an example of how illogical and retarded your answer/post was
ill simply use your failed inane "logic" against you

a ZEF doesnt have a right to force a woman to risk her life against her will
ergo abortion doesnt violate human rights or anybodys right, problem solve abortion is great!

you lose to facts again jay, is there ever a post of yours that doent get destroyed by facts

 

[AGENT J]

That was an example. When rights clash, one side usually loses. Typically the aggressor.

no, i asked for an example where there is no loser, you gave me one where there is a loser and thats EXACTLY my point

 

[JayDubya]

Good thing we got this false dilemma all wrapped up!

 

[AGENT J]

As it should be, because aggression is evil.

then by you own words you are evil for wanting aggression against women

 

[Ikari]

no, i asked for an example where there is no loser, you gave me one where there is a loser and thats EXACTLY my point

It's a rigged question. Both have rights at stake and when rights clash usually one of them loses, and typically it's the aggressor.

 

[Ikari]

then by you own words you are evil for wanting aggression against women

I think the statement of absolute is likely not correct, however, you are misrepresenting his point and I do think you know that.

 

[AGENT J]

It's a rigged question. Both have rights at stake and when rights clash usually one of them loses, and typically it's the aggressor.

no no you are mistaken its not rigged at all the whole purpose of it is to show that ONE will always lose

its a real question that some around here will ignore the honest and factual answer too

you are NOT ignoring the honest and real answer so you feel its rigged or you seem to think theres another shoe waiting to drop, there isnt

I agree 100% BOTH have rights at stake, there will ALWAYS be a clash and ONE will always lose.

some people simple ignore this fact, so im dying to see them try to BS there way around this fact and try to say one doesnt lose, one poster tried already and failed instantly

BUT at the same time, it would be AWESOME if there was a way for one not to lose because IMO the abortion debate would get even smaller than it is very quickly

the situation of abortion is very unique and not like robbery or murder or rape or slavery,(NOT claiming you said that) its it own unique thing that cant simply be addressed the same way

 

[AGENT J]

1.)I think the statement of absolute is likely not correct,
2.) however, you are misrepresenting his point
3.)and I do think you know that.

1.) by his words and wants its very correct
2.)nope im factually not, he has posted enough to solidfy how correct i am
3.) nope what i know is that his logic is severely faulty and hypocritical, so i simply use it against him. If he doesnt like his own faulty, failed and hypocritical logic used against him he is free to change it

 

[Ikari]

no no you are mistaken its not rigged at all the whole purpose of it is to show that ONE will always lose

its a real question that some around here will ignore the honest and factual answer too

you are NOT ignoring the honest and real answer so you feel its rigged or you seem to think theres another shoe waiting to drop, there isnt

I agree 100% BOTH have rights at stake, there will ALWAYS be a clash and ONE will always lose.

some people simple ignore this fact, so im dying to see them try to BS there way around this fact and try to say one doesnt lose, one poster tried already and failed instantly

BUT at the same time, it would be AWESOME if there was a way for one not to lose because IMO the abortion debate would get even smaller than it is very quickly

the situation of abortion is very unique and not like robbery or murder or rape or slavery,(NOT claiming you said that) its it own unique thing that cant simply be addressed the same way

It would be superb if instead of abortion the fetus could be beamed out of the uterus and allowed to mature in some incubator of scientific design. But I don't think it's completely out of line with robbery or murder or rape. The sticking point is biology.

 

[JayDubya]

I think the statement of absolute is likely not correct, however, you are misrepresenting his point and I do think you know that.

He's lying, flaming, and trolling. It's how he do.

Banning homicide as murder is "aggressive" against all those murderers. Ayup. Makes sense.

 

[Ikari]

1.) by his words and wants its very correct
2.)nope im factually not, he has posted enough to solidfy how correct i am
3.) nope what i know is that his logic is severely faulty and hypocritical, so i simply use it against him. If he doesnt like his own faulty, failed and hypocritical logic used against him he is free to change it

Because I believe it is clear that he is referring to the initiator of force. Which in this case would be the person seeking abortion. Left to its own devices, the baby would develop and be born in most cases. To change that requires force, and it's that initiation of force to which he would be responding to. He's not the initiator of force, but a respond-er. Both sides would be looking to use force. One against the rights of human life, the other against property and pursuit of happiness.

Though there's also the semantics in the difference between aggression and force.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)It would be superb if instead of abortion the fetus could be beamed out of the uterus and allowed to mature in some incubator of scientific design.
2.) But I don't think it's completely out of line with robbery or murder or rape.
3.)The sticking point is biology.

1.) i agree 100%
wouldnt be the end still many issues to address but it would be GREAT
2.) out of line? no, but its not a parrallel
3.) which is huge

 

[AGENT J]

He's lying, flaming, and trolling. It's how he do.

Banning homicide as murder is "aggressive" against all those murderers. Ayup. Makes sense.

nope, its your own logic and words, if it bothers you change your falty logic

 

[Ikari]

1.) i agree 100%
wouldnt be the end still many issues to address but it would be GREAT
2.) out of line? no, but its not a parrallel
3.) which is huge

I don't think it's huge at all if you consider natural state.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Because I believe it is clear that he is referring to the initiator of force.
2.) Which in this case would be the person seeking abortion.
3.) Left to its own devices, the baby would develop and be born in most cases. To change that requires force, and it's that initiation of force to which he would be responding to.
4.) He's not the initiator of force, but a respond-er. Both sides would be looking to use force.
5.) One against the rights of human life, the other against property and pursuit of happiness.
6.) Though there's also the semantics in the difference between aggression and force.

1.) which is his subjective opinion and would be him if he banned it
2.) not if theres a law FIRST forcing the woman to risk her life against her will
3.) left to her own devices the woman could choose whether she risks her own life, to change that requires force and its the initiation of that force based on his failed logic im pointing out
4.) i just showed he indeed was and "CAN" be, its subjective and based on perspective, hence why i said abortion is very unique
5.) once against the life of the woman and the other against the life of the ZEF
6.) i agree thats why i expose his semantics

If he doesnt like his own faulty, failed and hypocritical logic used against him he is free to change it

 

[AGENT J]

I don't think it's huge at all if you consider natural state.

natural state?
natural state (inside another being, risk of life) is exactly what makes it huge and totally different

 

[opendebate]

simple question

How does one ban abortion (make it murder) and not violate the woman's current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?

now lets be very clear, im not saying one HAS to do so to justify wanting abortion banned and im not asking for reason why you think its ok to violate a womans current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?

If you think its ok to do so thats your choice and its fine by me, posters have stated why they value the woman more or the ZEF more in the past.

what im asking is there anybody that thinks they have a way to ban abortion (make it murder or not, doesnt really matter) and not violate the womans current freedoms, liberties, legal rights and human rights (if you believe in them) including her right to life.

I cant come up with a single way myself nor have i read one. Does one exist? if so please share.

It's not possible. Someone or some thing (depending on your perspective) will loose. But the dilemma is not uncommon to us. We often find ourselves making choices between the lessor of two evils. People (conservatives) in this country often defend their freedoms at any cost; presenting stripping someone of that freedom as the ultimate injustice. It's odd to me that as vehemently as they defend their freedoms they find it so easy to strip women of theirs. If I chose this course and I have taken an innocent life and their is a God to condemn me for it, that is between me and her.

 

[Oftencold]

simple question

How does one ban abortion (make it murder) and not violate the woman's current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?

now lets be very clear, im not saying one HAS to do so to justify wanting abortion banned and im not asking for reason why you think its ok to violate a womans current freedoms, liberties, legal and human rights, including her right to life?

If you think its ok to do so thats your choice and its fine by me, posters have stated why they value the woman more or the ZEF more in the past.

what im asking is there anybody that thinks they have a way to ban abortion (make it murder or not, doesnt really matter) and not violate the womans current freedoms, liberties, legal rights and human rights (if you believe in them) including her right to life.

I cant come up with a single way myself nor have i read one. Does one exist? if so please share.

So. The Abolition of Slavery in America violated the property rights of slave owners, right?

Obviously, the emancipation of women violated husband's sovereignty rights over their wives persons, and father's rights to sell their daughters into arranged marriages.

Animal cruelty laws are nothing but an abrogation of human rights, clearly.


Hint: All laws limit freedoms liberties and rights, that's what they're for.