Would anyone explain what exactly human right and civil right are? Between all these rights and laws, who dominates who? It is so confused. For example, between abortion and anti-abortion, which is human right, which is not? Is this one of the civil right if someone places our men/women in uniform to a more vulnerable situation by exposing the military secrets? Is hunting a human right? But then, if one group wants to hunt a certain kind of animal but another group must disallow such hunting, which group tries to remove the human right of the other group?
To which prolifers will reply, "Well then she shouldn't be spreading her legs then!"
At which point we've left the realm of "rights", both civil and human, and hopped an express train to Sillytown.
Would anyone explain what exactly human right and civil right are? Between all these rights and laws, who dominates who? It is so confused. For example, between abortion and anti-abortion, which is human right, which is not? Is this one of the civil right if someone places our men/women in uniform to a more vulnerable situation by exposing the military secrets? Is hunting a human right? But then, if one group wants to hunt a certain kind of animal but another group must disallow such hunting, which group tries to remove the human right of the other group?
Until it comes time for the father to write a check to support a kid he doesn't want, in which case, he shouldn't have dipped his pen. Then it's no longer "Sillytown," it's just "duh."
It's a controversial and incendiary issue.
As used in modern parlance, "human rights" are usually codewords to promote a leftist, statist agenda -- particularly as they pertain to "rights" to be provided with material benefit.
I agree that the Left tends to be far more concerned about human rights.
It's part of what makes me proud to be a Leftist.
Making stuff up to promote your statist agenda? Much to be proud of.
Again, you're talking civil versus human rights.
Or- if you're correct and the current situation is unfair to men- it's their civil rights only which are being violated; they're being forced to pay money they don't wish to pay.
That is not comparable to females being forced to host unwanted organisms inside their bodies, which subsist by extracting their bodily resources against their will.
That would be a human rights violation.
As I think I just demonstrated in my last post, civil rights violations are far less serious that human rights violations.
Please point to what I've "made up".
No, it's their human right (using your terms) to control over their reproductive choices.
If you choose not to acknowledge the double standard, it doesn't mean the double standard isn't there. I would point out that most pro-lifers I'm aware don't have this double-standard, and expect both to be responsible for the child they both created.
Men choose when they impregnate a woman.
Women then choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.
Men cannot, perforce, dictate this choice without violating women's right to bodily sovereignty.
That is basic human physiology.
Whining about how it's not fair is about as silly as women whining about how it's not fair that they have periods and have to spend extra money on pads and tampons , which men do not have to spend.
Cry to heaven, complain to the manufacturer.
There is no one here on earth that can alter the human condition, no matter how "unfair".
Men and women have different physiological roles in reproduction and in the perpetuation of the species. The fact that they have different rights reflects that.
If it makes you feel any better, men also have the right to bodily sovereignty; a male has every bit as much right to end a pregnancy as a female does, if a male ever manages to conceive a pregnancy.
That such a right will never be needed does not change the fact that it exists.
And women are also forced to pay child support, whether or not they want to, when men are primary custodians of their children.
There is nothing unfair.
As I said, refusal to acknowledge the double-standard does not mean the double-standard doesn't exist. It simply means you refuse to acknowledge it. If anything is "Sillytown," that's it.
It's not a double standard because men who are custodians of children can also exact child support payments from the mothers.
The law favors the suitable guardians, not the suitable genders.
Men choose when they impregnate a woman.
Women then choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.
Men cannot, perforce, dictate this choice without violating women's right to bodily sovereignty.
There is only one purpose for intercourse designated by Mother Nature: reproduction.
No right should cost another person anything when exercised.
To me, there's no moral quandary whatsoever; the body belongs solely to its original inhabitant.
She shares it only as she sees fit, when she sees fit, with whom she sees fit.
But others clearly don't perceive it that way.
When do you believe personal sovereignty begins for an individual? Immediately after birth, immediately after a child becomes self-aware, immediately after leaving the parents home, or at some other moment?
Frequently, rights come into conflict.
The abortion issue is a prime example.
The fetus potentially infringes on the woman's right to sovereignty over her own body, specifically her reproductive system.
By evicting it from her body, however, the woman infringes upon the fetus's right to "life", ie to inhabit her body and subsist by extracting her bodily resources.
If one believes a fetus is a person, and if one believes people have any such "right".
To me, there's no moral quandary whatsoever; the body belongs solely to its original inhabitant.
She shares it only as she sees fit, when she sees fit, with whom she sees fit.
But others clearly don't perceive it that way.
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?