Rights v Rights

[ksu_aviator]

I hate posting in this forum because there is so much vitriol on this subject. But I wanted to break down the topic to the core issue. The rights of the pregnant as compared to the rights of the conceived.

We have a commonly accepted principle in our society that can be summed up colloquially as; your rights end where my rights begin. That principle is well and good when our rights don't intermingle, but when the rights of multiple individuals cross paths and cannot be separated without detriment, it is difficult or impossible to determine who's rights take precedence. In the case of abortion, we have two sets of rights, a woman's right to privacy and an unborn human's right to live. Both are valid. A woman absolutely has the right to keep her medical information between her and her providers (doctors, insurance, etc). However, natural law dictates that all people have certain unalienable rights like life, liberty, and property.

In my opinion, rights should be handled by a hierarchy of rights, then by causation, then by detriment.

The hierarchy would be as follows (from the UN declaration of rights with some modifications.

Right to life
Right to liberty
Right to equality before the law
Right to security of person.
Right to recognition as a person before the law.
Right to privacy, family, home and correspondence.
Right to free association
Right to education.
Right to equal protection against any discrimination in violation.
Right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and freedom of opinion and expression
Right to an effective remedy for acts violating the fundamental rights
Right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
Right to own property alone
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

If an individual causes another individual's rights to become integrated with their own, the rights of the other individual shall take precedence.

If neither the parties involved are equal in the hierarchy of rights and neither caused their rights to become entangled, then the rights of the person that are affected to greatest degree of detriment should take precedence.

Obviously, this isn't a perfect plan. This is the first iteration of my thoughts on this. Discuss.

 

[tomkat364]

I predict the following response imminently: "Unborn are not persons so they have no rights" Might have a modifier stating how the Supreme Court determined viability to be blah blah blah.

I think you are spot on, though.

 

[prometeus]

I predict the following response imminently: "Unborn are not persons so they have no rights" Might have a modifier stating how the Supreme Court determined viability to be blah blah blah.

I think you are spot on, though.

Fetuses do not have rights, never had them nor is there any basis for fetuses to have rights. That is just reality, fetuses do not count or are significant beyond what the pregnant woman wants it to be.

 

[SocialD]

I hate posting in this forum because there is so much vitriol on this subject. But I wanted to break down the topic to the core issue. The rights of the pregnant as compared to the rights of the conceived.

We have a commonly accepted principle in our society that can be summed up colloquially as; your rights end where my rights begin. That principle is well and good when our rights don't intermingle, but when the rights of multiple individuals cross paths and cannot be separated without detriment, it is difficult or impossible to determine who's rights take precedence. In the case of abortion, we have two sets of rights, a woman's right to privacy and an unborn human's right to live. Both are valid. A woman absolutely has the right to keep her medical information between her and her providers (doctors, insurance, etc). However, natural law dictates that all people have certain unalienable rights like life, liberty, and property.

In my opinion, rights should be handled by a hierarchy of rights, then by causation, then by detriment.

The hierarchy would be as follows (from the UN declaration of rights with some modifications.



If an individual causes another individual's rights to become integrated with their own, the rights of the other individual shall take precedence.

If neither the parties involved are equal in the hierarchy of rights and neither caused their rights to become entangled, then the rights of the person that are affected to greatest degree of detriment should take precedence.

Obviously, this isn't a perfect plan. This is the first iteration of my thoughts on this. Discuss.

So I see where you are going with this the unborn child would have the top right of life with would be primary to the right to the womans privacy if she wanted to abort which is what roe v wade is based on ?
I'm not sure if I'm right in that that's what you are saying or not.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I hate posting in this forum because there is so much vitriol on this subject. But I wanted to break down the topic to the core issue. The rights of the pregnant as compared to the rights of the conceived.

We have a commonly accepted principle in our society that can be summed up colloquially as; your rights end where my rights begin. That principle is well and good when our rights don't intermingle, but when the rights of multiple individuals cross paths and cannot be separated without detriment, it is difficult or impossible to determine who's rights take precedence. In the case of abortion, we have two sets of rights, a woman's right to privacy and an unborn human's right to live. Both are valid. A woman absolutely has the right to keep her medical information between her and her providers (doctors, insurance, etc). However, natural law dictates that all people have certain unalienable rights like life, liberty, and property.

In my opinion, rights should be handled by a hierarchy of rights, then by causation, then by detriment.

The hierarchy would be as follows (from the UN declaration of rights with some modifications.



If an individual causes another individual's rights to become integrated with their own, the rights of the other individual shall take precedence.

If neither the parties involved are equal in the hierarchy of rights and neither caused their rights to become entangled, then the rights of the person that are affected to greatest degree of detriment should take precedence.

Obviously, this isn't a perfect plan. This is the first iteration of my thoughts on this. Discuss.

I don't know where you think this list is going, but from my understanding all of those rights depend on the independent existence of a human being after birth.

Trying to apply them (as many "pro-life" proponents strive to do) to a developing fetus in the womb is problematic at best.

The argument will always revolve around two issues:

1. At what point is a fetus rightly considered a human being (personhood) with inherent rights, and

2. If the argument is at conception, how to explain all those natural miscarriages that occur in the vast majority (up to 75%) of all pregnancies?

IMO telling someone that once they are pregnant the developing organism has all the inherent rights of a fully developed human being is unreasonable and illogical.

 

[Paleocon]

I hate posting in this forum because there is so much vitriol on this subject. But I wanted to break down the topic to the core issue. The rights of the pregnant as compared to the rights of the conceived.

We have a commonly accepted principle in our society that can be summed up colloquially as; your rights end where my rights begin. That principle is well and good when our rights don't intermingle, but when the rights of multiple individuals cross paths and cannot be separated without detriment, it is difficult or impossible to determine who's rights take precedence. In the case of abortion, we have two sets of rights, a woman's right to privacy and an unborn human's right to live. Both are valid. A woman absolutely has the right to keep her medical information between her and her providers (doctors, insurance, etc). However, natural law dictates that all people have certain unalienable rights like life, liberty, and property.

In my opinion, rights should be handled by a hierarchy of rights, then by causation, then by detriment.

The hierarchy would be as follows (from the UN declaration of rights with some modifications.



If an individual causes another individual's rights to become integrated with their own, the rights of the other individual shall take precedence.

If neither the parties involved are equal in the hierarchy of rights and neither caused their rights to become entangled, then the rights of the person that are affected to greatest degree of detriment should take precedence.

Obviously, this isn't a perfect plan. This is the first iteration of my thoughts on this. Discuss.

Taking a list compiled by and for liberals and trying to apply it against liberals won't work.

The argument against abortion is clear and straightforward. That it is always and everywhere wrong without exception to deliberately kill the innocent.

 

[tomkat364]

Fetuses do not have rights, never had them nor is there any basis for fetuses to have rights. That is just reality, fetuses do not count or are significant beyond what the pregnant woman wants it to be.

Sorry OP, I told you this would be the case. There is a complete lack of understanding about rights when discussed in regards to abortion. The above response is predicated on what has been decided, and ignores the fact that there are absolutely NO rights which are based on anything other than consensus. There is no basis for any human to have rights, other than that other humans voluntarily extend rights to them, i.e. subjective and arbitrary. At one time blacks and women had 'no basis' for having rights. Then we decided otherwise.

 

[year2late]

First of all, how do you give a fetus the same rights as a born person without taking away rights of the woman who does not wish to remain pregnant??

 

[Captain Adverse]

Sorry OP, I told you this would be the case. There is a complete lack of understanding about rights when discussed in regards to abortion. The above response is predicated on what has been decided, and ignores the fact that there are absolutely NO rights which are based on anything other than consensus. There is no basis for any human to have rights, other than that other humans voluntarily extend rights to them, i.e. subjective and arbitrary. At one time blacks and women had 'no basis' for having rights. Then we decided otherwise.

WRONG! Inherent rights are dependent on no one.

No one gives me the right to self-defense. I exercise it independently and to the best of my ability.

No one gives me the right to express myself as freely as I wish. That is exercised at my discretion via my innate ability to communicate. The list goes on.

What organized societies, or individual aggressors can do is try to limit my rights, or try to prevent me from exercising them.

I am still free to agree or disagree as I choose.

 

[Removable Mind]

Sorry OP, I told you this would be the case. There is a complete lack of understanding about rights when discussed in regards to abortion. The above response is predicated on what has been decided, and ignores the fact that there are absolutely NO rights which are based on anything other than consensus. There is no basis for any human to have rights, other than that other humans voluntarily extend rights to them, i.e. subjective and arbitrary. At one time blacks and women had 'no basis' for having rights. Then we decided otherwise.

And obviously there are people in DP who believe that a yet to be born has more value than the born. It's impossible for the yet to be born to be equal to the born.

Pray tell, give us examples where the yet to be born can be given "person status" without infringing on the Constitutional rights of women...AND MEN (without gutting the 14th Amendment).

 

[Henrin]

I don't know where you think this list is going, but from my understanding all of those rights depend on the independent existence of a human being after birth.

Trying to apply them (as many "pro-life" proponents strive to do) to a developing fetus in the womb is problematic at best.

The argument will always revolve around two issues:

1. At what point is a fetus rightly considered a human being (personhood) with inherent rights, and

2. If the argument is at conception, how to explain all those natural miscarriages that occur in the vast majority (up to 75%) of all pregnancies?

IMO telling someone that once they are pregnant the developing organism has all the inherent rights of a fully developed human being is unreasonable and illogical.

Natural miscarriage doesn't really need explained at this point. We know what causes miscarriages and we know that in the vast majority of cases it is outside of the woman's control. The issue with miscarriages is how you deal with them in law.

 

[SocialD]

And obviously there are people in DP who believe that a yet to be born has more value than the born. It's impossible for the yet to be born to be equal to the born.

Pray tell, give us examples where the yet to be born can be given "person status" without infringing on the Constitutional rights of women...AND MEN (without gutting the 14th Amendment).

You might refer to my reply to the OP. I believe he is saying that the list of rights should be prioritized, for instance the right to live is superior to the right to privacy. at least that's what I think he is saying he hasn't responded yet.

 

[Removable Mind]

I hate posting in this forum because there is so much vitriol on this subject. But I wanted to break down the topic to the core issue. The rights of the pregnant as compared to the rights of the conceived.

We have a commonly accepted principle in our society that can be summed up colloquially as; your rights end where my rights begin. That principle is well and good when our rights don't intermingle, but when the rights of multiple individuals cross paths and cannot be separated without detriment, it is difficult or impossible to determine who's rights take precedence. In the case of abortion, we have two sets of rights, a woman's right to privacy and an unborn human's right to live. Both are valid. A woman absolutely has the right to keep her medical information between her and her providers (doctors, insurance, etc). However, natural law dictates that all people have certain unalienable rights like life, liberty, and property.

In my opinion, rights should be handled by a hierarchy of rights, then by causation, then by detriment.

The hierarchy would be as follows (from the UN declaration of rights with some modifications.



If an individual causes another individual's rights to become integrated with their own, the rights of the other individual shall take precedence.

If neither the parties involved are equal in the hierarchy of rights and neither caused their rights to become entangled, then the rights of the person that are affected to greatest degree of detriment should take precedence.

Obviously, this isn't a perfect plan. This is the first iteration of my thoughts on this. Discuss.

What a pantload of nonsense.

Fess up, what you're saying is that the yet to be born should have full Constitutional rights as born persons - and since the born caused them to come into existence their (the yet to be born) rights become superior over those who are born...because they are helpless, innocent, and can't fend for themselves so government becomes their voice. Holy bull****! :shock:

 

[Removable Mind]

You might refer to my reply to the OP. I believe he is saying that the list of rights should be prioritized, for instance the right to live is superior to the right to privacy. at least that's what I think he is saying he hasn't responded yet.

Thanks...

You said the following to ksu_aviator:

So I see where you are going with this the unborn child would have the top right of life with would be primary to the right to the woman's privacy if she wanted to abort which is what roe v wade is based on ?

I'm not sure if I'm right in that that's what you are saying or not.

That was a vaild observation and question. See my post #13.

 

[prometeus]

Sorry OP, I told you this would be the case.

No you did not. You predicated your prediction on personhood or SCOTUS decision and now you quoted me when I did not mention either.

There is a complete lack of understanding about rights when discussed in regards to abortion.

What is there to understand that is not?

The above response is predicated on what has been decided, and ignores the fact that there are absolutely NO rights which are based on anything other than consensus.

Where does it do that?

There is no basis for any human to have rights, other than that other humans voluntarily extend rights to them, i.e. subjective and arbitrary.

Exactly.

At one time blacks and women had 'no basis' for having rights. Then we decided otherwise.

Your point is?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Natural miscarriage doesn't really need explained at this point. We know what causes miscarriages and we know that in the vast majority of cases it is outside of the woman's control. The issue with miscarriages is how you deal with them in law.

Forgive me but that response has no relevance to the point I made.

Look again. The first clause is "If the argument is (personhood begins) at conception..."

What is the logical (scientific/rational?) argument showing that it does? How does one argue that a developing group of cells at conception is the equivalent of a fully developed human being?

We also know the illogical (emotional/spiritual?) argument: That deity infuses the fetus with the human spirit at conception.

But if that is really true? Then that deity is either the greatest mass-murderer in all of human history, or extraordinarily wasteful of human souls...if it allows 75% of "humans" to die of "natural" miscarriages before ever being born into the world. How then hold humans to task when they elect artificial miscarriages?

 

[Bodi]

I predict the following response imminently: "Unborn are not persons so they have no rights" Might have a modifier stating how the Supreme Court determined viability to be blah blah blah.

I think you are spot on, though.

Fetus's are not people and do not have rights... blah blah blah... you are absolutely correct.

 

[Bodi]

Sorry OP, I told you this would be the case. There is a complete lack of understanding about rights when discussed in regards to abortion. The above response is predicated on what has been decided, and ignores the fact that there are absolutely NO rights which are based on anything other than consensus. There is no basis for any human to have rights, other than that other humans voluntarily extend rights to them, i.e. subjective and arbitrary. At one time blacks and women had 'no basis' for having rights. Then we decided otherwise.

That is exactly right and so what? Children do not have the same rights as adults. Illegal immigrants do not have the same rights as citizens. Fetus's have no rights at all. If you have a problem with the last you must have a problem with the first two, by logical extension.

 

[Lursa]

I hate posting in this forum because there is so much vitriol on this subject. But I wanted to break down the topic to the core issue. The rights of the pregnant as compared to the rights of the conceived.

We have a commonly accepted principle in our society that can be summed up colloquially as; your rights end where my rights begin. That principle is well and good when our rights don't intermingle, but when the rights of multiple individuals cross paths and cannot be separated without detriment, it is difficult or impossible to determine who's rights take precedence. In the case of abortion, we have two sets of rights, a woman's right to privacy and an unborn human's right to live. Both are valid. A woman absolutely has the right to keep her medical information between her and her providers (doctors, insurance, etc). However, natural law dictates that all people have certain unalienable rights like life, liberty, and property.

In my opinion, rights should be handled by a hierarchy of rights, then by causation, then by detriment.

The hierarchy would be as follows (from the UN declaration of rights with some modifications.



If an individual causes another individual's rights to become integrated with their own, the rights of the other individual shall take precedence.

If neither the parties involved are equal in the hierarchy of rights and neither caused their rights to become entangled, then the rights of the person that are affected to greatest degree of detriment should take precedence.

Obviously, this isn't a perfect plan. This is the first iteration of my thoughts on this. Discuss.

Is that 'heirarchy' to be forced on others against their will? Because our govt does not, at least not when it comes to those inalienable rights set forth in our DOI. It's 'Life, liberty, AND the pursuit of happiness.'

And in America, people CHOOSE to give up all three of those, yes, including life, all the time for their country, their family, their religion, their principles, etc.

So it's a nice list, but who says it is one that all agree on? Obviously, not all do, depending on their circumstances. And again, our govt does not demand justification of their priorities from individuals on this...so why should others?

 

[Lursa]

I hate posting in this forum because there is so much vitriol on this subject. But I wanted to break down the topic to the core issue. The rights of the pregnant as compared to the rights of the conceived.

We have a commonly accepted principle in our society that can be summed up colloquially as; your rights end where my rights begin. That principle is well and good when our rights don't intermingle, but when the rights of multiple individuals cross paths and cannot be separated without detriment, it is difficult or impossible to determine who's rights take precedence. In the case of abortion, we have two sets of rights, a woman's right to privacy and an unborn human's right to live. Both are valid. A woman absolutely has the right to keep her medical information between her and her providers (doctors, insurance, etc). However, natural law dictates that all people have certain unalienable rights like life, liberty, and property.

In my opinion, rights should be handled by a hierarchy of rights, then by causation, then by detriment.

The hierarchy would be as follows (from the UN declaration of rights with some modifications.



If an individual causes another individual's rights to become integrated with their own, the rights of the other individual shall take precedence.

If neither the parties involved are equal in the hierarchy of rights and neither caused their rights to become entangled, then the rights of the person that are affected to greatest degree of detriment should take precedence.

Obviously, this isn't a perfect plan. This is the first iteration of my thoughts on this. Discuss.

And if you believe in the primacy of rights in determining equal treatment for humans (as is implied by the OP), IMO here is proof that the unborn are not equal:

The unborn have no rights that they can exercise independently. None. All are dependent on their mother.

. Before birth, the unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother (physically, legally, ethically, practically). It's a dependency that truly demonstrates that it is not equal.

 

[Lursa]

Sorry OP, I told you this would be the case. There is a complete lack of understanding about rights when discussed in regards to abortion. The above response is predicated on what has been decided, and ignores the fact that there are absolutely NO rights which are based on anything other than consensus. There is no basis for any human to have rights, other than that other humans voluntarily extend rights to them, i.e. subjective and arbitrary. At one time blacks and women had 'no basis' for having rights. Then we decided otherwise.

This is true. And other humans in America have decided not to recognize any rights for the unborn. Not only did the SC decide it, the majority of Americans support it.

 

[Lursa]

WRONG! Inherent rights are dependent on no one.

No one gives me the right to self-defense. I exercise it independently and to the best of my ability.

No one gives me the right to express myself as freely as I wish. That is exercised at my discretion via my innate ability to communicate. The list goes on.

What organized societies, or individual aggressors can do is try to limit my rights, or try to prevent me from exercising them.

I am still free to agree or disagree as I choose.

There are no such things as inherent rights. Rights are a man-made concept.

 

[Captain Adverse]

There are no such things as inherent rights. Rights are a man-made concept.

I see, hmmm...

So if I decide to just beat you up you should just stand there and take it. You have no right to defend yourself so why should you make any attempt to?

 

[Lursa]

I see, hmmm...

So if I decide to just beat you up you should just stand there and take it. You have no right to defend yourself so why should you make any attempt to?

How did you come up with that from: rights are a man-made concept? Man decided what rights to recognize and then codified them and set up systems to protect them. :doh

If rights are inherent...why dont other animals have them?

 

[Captain Adverse]

How did you come up with that from: rights are a man-made concept? Man decided what rights to recognize and then codified them and set up systems to protect them. :doh

If rights are inherent...why dont other animals have them?

They DO have them...we just choose not to recognize them. (Unless you are a member of Greenpeace or PETA).

All animals communicate. All animals struggle to survive. Animals do all sorts of things that we refuse to recognize because they aren't "sentient" and "Human."

It is our Hubris as the current "top of the food chain" that allows us to treat other animals the way we do.

Still, Humanity's "gift" is to be aware of the concept. We know that in a state of nature we exercise rights to preserve and enjoy our existence. We label these "Natural" rights, and such rights begin with birth end with death. We don't give each other these natural rights. They are self-enforcing by free will and the choices we make.

You say you don't have a "natural right" to defend yourself, yet you would probably do so anyway. As would most creatures on this planet. You might call it natural instinct, but instinct seldom allows for choice and you actually do have a choice. To analyze a situation and then decide how to react to it; whether to run, to fight, to negotiate, to sacrifice yourself. The mere exercise of such choices demonstrates an inherent characteristic, a "natural right" dependent on no one else.

The only thing correct about your position is that we humans have chosen to label this characteristic with the term Right. You could just as well call it anything, but it still shakes out as "I can do this and you can't stop me unless you kill me."