- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 7,676
- Reaction score
- 2,850
- Location
- Your Head
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
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.
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.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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
No you did not. You predicated your prediction on personhood or SCOTUS decision and now you quoted me when I did not mention either.Sorry OP, I told you this would be the case.
What is there to understand that is not?There is a complete lack of understanding about rights when discussed in regards to abortion.
Where does it do that?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.
Exactly.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.
Your point is?At one time blacks and women had 'no basis' for having rights. Then we decided otherwise.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
. 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.
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.
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?
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?
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?