CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
That depends. Does a man's rights over his wallet beats a woman's right to collect 18 years of child support? If the answer is no.... then the child's life beats her rights to her body if the father wants the child ;)
Okay. My wife's ex paid little child support. When he found she was going to marry me, he stopped altogether. She could have gone after him, I said forget it. Big deal $40 a month for two girls. I got the children and the wife. They both love ME. One of his children tolerates him, the other "likes" him. By the way, He and I are now "friends", I wouldn't keep his irresponsible self away from his children, he knows he lost. He is still a lonely bachelor, nobody found him worthy, He's 70 now.
I try to look at life in a practical way. If a woman has an irresponsible husband, she shouldn't have to pay the price. She should have a CHOICE.
I am not sure we are talking the same thing. I am assuming you are talking about this guy was married to a woman, had 2 children then they got a divorce. Yes, he should pay child support and stay in the children's life (unless he's a criminal or something). I am talking about a couple who discover they are pregnant and he doesn't want the child (i.e., there is time for an abortion). The point I'm trying to make is that the current system sucks for the man.
If the woman wants the child and he does not, tough. She wins. He has to pay child support.
If the man wants the child and she does not, tough. She wins. His child is aborted.
I want ONE of 2 possible solutions.
1. If the man wants the child and she does not, tough. He wins. She has to carry the baby for 9 months.
If the woman wants the child and he does not, tough. She wins. He has to pay child support.
OR
2. If the woman wants the child and he does not, tough. He wins. She has to abort.
If the man wants the child and she does not, tough. She wins. His child is aborted.
I don't care which of the 2 options above we chose. But picking one of those two options will make the issue a little more fair. ;)
IF one has to chose between only those two scenario's. I think I would lean more towards the first. If the child is wanted, it should be birthed then given to the one that wants it. If the second party to the conception wants to have interaction with the child later they should but then they should also help to care for it, be it money or paternal support. Otherwise, perhaps since their choice was taken away they would wave away rights or financial obligations.
This is of course in relation to these two choices for instances only. Ultimately I believe the woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body, however in the event the child is genuinely wanted by either party, there should be some considerations made.
At another time my FIRST wife DID get an abortion when her doctor said she would not likely survive her pregnancy. Her doctor, who had delivered HER when she was born, gave her an "illegal" (at the time), abortion to save her life for myself and the two children she already had. They had her for about two years after that during their 6-10 formative years. I (and they), will always be thankful to her doctor. I'm happy we had the "choice"! Choice IS important.
Okay. My wife's ex paid little child support. When he found she was going to marry me, he stopped altogether. She could have gone after him, I said forget it. Big deal $40 a month for two girls. I got the children and the wife. They both love ME. One of his children tolerates him, the other "likes" him. By the way, He and I are now "friends", I wouldn't keep his irresponsible self away from his children, he knows he lost. He is still a lonely bachelor, nobody found him worthy, He's 70 now.
I try to look at life in a practical way. If a woman has an irresponsible husband, she shouldn't have to pay the price. She should have a CHOICE
I feel that a woman has the absolute right to decide what does , or what does not happen to her body.
If a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy within the parameters of the law of the country in which she lives then she has every right, both legally and morally to have an abortion.
The sanctimonious plagiarists who spew out their feigned moralistic drivel and quote passages from the internet written by Don Quixote type academics who try to assert that the a person's mind and body are two separate entities are no more than mischievous wannabe intellectuals.
Most of the true academics can be forgiven for some of their fanciful notions as they're, in the main, divorced from the realities and harshness of the world in which they they live.
However, those pretenders who replicate the surreal views of the intellectual dreamers are no more than egotistical phonies.
You've used a lot of adjectival phrases in your diatribe. Well done. But you've done it without actually qualifying the adjectives you ascribe to the nouns. Not exactly convincing.
Those who oppose abortion aren't saying per se that a woman has no right to choose what happens to her own body, no more than they are saying a man has no right to choose what happens to his. As a man, if I have an unwelcome growth on my body -- a wart, or a cancerous tumour, or a parasitic wasp, for instance -- I have the legal and moral right to have it removed for the sake of my health.
If a woman has any of those afflictions, she likewise has the legal and moral right to have those removed. Therein I suppose lies the differences in our respective moral compasses: I do not see a foetus as a medical affliction. In fact, to compare a human child to a wart or a parasite or a wasp, something that needs removed for one's wellbeing, well -- you use the words moral when talking about the right to an abortion -- such a person has lost any genuine idea of what morality even is, in the most fundamental and intrinsic ways: those are, the sense of empathy which drives one to put oneself in another human's shoes (particularly the shoes of those who are innocent), and the intrinsic instinct to protect one's young. A person without those two most basic moral faculties is unable to be counted as a moral being. Thus he or she who makes a moral argument from such a standpoint, is fundamentally and inescapably self-repudiating.
A child is not simply a parasitic growth.
Further, to ascertain what a feotus actually is (rather than simply a part of a woman's body) I feel I must educate you on basic biology. A sperm meets an egg, and a unique life-form, with unique DNA, is created. That is more than simply a part of a woman's body. It is a new life-form brought to fruition by the amalgamation of two bodies, two DNA carriers, two human beings.
Thus I would posit that whether or not the woman is the carrier, does not negate the rights of the father: but I will play devil's advocate and align with the counterargument. Let's say that because the woman is the carrier, that we consider the feotus of no property or right of the father, thus as the woman's to do with as she pleases. The corollary to which is this: if the child is part of the woman's body and nothing more, then the father has no duty to that child should the female wish to retain it. Thus comes with the right of free abortion for all women in any case, the equal right of all men in any case to give up any and all responsibility to any and all pregnancies in which they are part.
No more child support. No more alimony. No more welfare for single mommies: men aren't part of the social reproductive responsibility, remember?
But for a simple fact of human life, abortion at any time for women and ousting of all men from the reproductive circle will never happen: women looking after babies need men to do the other things like run the economy and create money for their welfare cheques. the flip side of the coin: to oust men from the social reproductive conversation and to strip men of legal power in reproduction, is not only self destructive for women, but ultimately self defeating for the wider neofeminist garbage: men are physically, politically and emotionally stronger, fitter and more aggressive than women are.
A war against men is not a war women can win. That isn't sexism, it's evolutionary biology. Men are EVOLVED to do the things a pregnant woman cannot. For once, we would very much appreciate it, if you would appreciate that. We are more than happy to fulfil it; but pretending it isn't so just makes you look silly.
it's of course worth noting that elective abortion in the West was popularized by French rapist and pervert Marquis de Sade, who the term "sadism" comes from:
I'd like to see these "bleeding heart conservatives" worry a little bit about the fetus AFTER it leaves the birth canal. Maybe even a poor mother who can't afford a doctor for her OR the fetus. That's the major part Planned Parenthood played in the life of BOTH! So these BHC's shut down 170+ centers where they could get lifesaving care for BOTH, This puts those left out of affordable travel range for thousands of poor mothers. I wonder how many fetuses (OR mothers OR both), have died since the closings. Or maybe how many babies have been added to the numbers of "mentally challenged" because they didn't get the nourishment required to develop normally!?? Or the care to save the "born baby" after birth.
America HAD the most expensive health care in the world, before AHC, with an "abortion" of a record of infant death AFTER live birth! 173rd out of 193 countries ... EVERY "socialized medicine" system was better than U.S.! (And the rates were about to skyrocket)! (Enter Obama Care!) Then those BHC's refused to work on the problems their restriction (to get it passed), caused! (And THOSE rates (in some cases) have skyrocketed). How many infant deaths have been caused by those Evangelical driven BHC's??? I hope somebody figures THAT out! I'll be watching the WHO to find out.
If the "foetus" is entitled to more decision about it than it's mother then it also might as well just start pulling her stringss and making her walk and talk as he likes, kind of like the mouse/chef in Ratatouille.
... But that doesn't happen, does it?
Because the "foetus" has got nothing. No rights, and no control, neither physically nor in principle. And so it remains until the Supreme Court reverses Roe, or not.
I see you're in college and in a relationship. Does your girlfriend still have her womb? Or are you 100% abstinent? Or are you 100% certain the two of you are ready to have a baby if it results?
Actually the baby typically does have a lot of pull over its mother, such as getting her to feed it and change it whenever it cries; in fact from a sociological perspective of hierarchy the baby while in its care state is on a higher position of hierarchy than the mother, at is she who is at its beck and call, not the other way around.
Likewise the nonsensical supreme court decision doesn't override natural law, of course the rights of the baby over the rights of some ill-fit "mothers'" blood lust are objective, just as the fact that the earth is round is of course objective, regardless if the Flat Earth Society "decides" it is flat.
And reversing the Supreme Court decision on the books is not needed anyway, as there are plenty of other indirect ways to circumvent it with legal policy or direct action activism (such as defunding Planned Murderhood), that and given the electoral outlook of the states last election, they're only a few states short of having enough to repeal the 14th Amendment entirely, which would be good measure were this done in the next 4-8 years of Republican rule.
Before it has the power to exact her nutrients, hence her body is still at its beck and call, she the servant, the child the master. So denying it of its natural right to its servants' bodily support is of course a crime against natural law that should be met with full retribution. I would support a right for infant killers to have cigarette before their speedy execution though, I'm very generious :)
You could but only if one is a sociopath with no understanding of natural law, and sociopaths and other social miscreants shouldn't have any say in civilized society outside of prisons of course. The only social parasites are the child-murdering deviants of course, like their ideological ally the rapist and sexual sadist Marquis de Sade who popularized elective abortion in the West.
The way to avoid unwanted pregnancies of course is not to be an irresponsible whore, or deal with equally irresponsible men who give company to said whores.
One's rights to murder innocent babies end where the barrels of the state's guns begin.
The way to avoid unwanted pregnancies of course is not to be an irresponsible whore
I'm sorry, I didn't realise having sex and the condom failing due to circumstances that are out of one's control constitutes one being an "irresponsible whore".
Or being raped and impregnated makes one an "irresponsible whore".
Yes, if you have sex without a condom then it is your fault for taking those risks. But why blame those who are responsible, and do care about the risks?
Calling women "irresponsible whores" for wanting to have the final say over what they do with their bodies is beyond misogynistic.
At the end of the day, it's their body, their choice.
Having sex irresponsibly (with or without a condom) is under one's control, as people are not savage animals and can keep their impulses in check and take into account their financial situations.
Rape of course is an entirely separate issue.
Women who act as irresponsible whores deserve to be called such, calling it misogyny is an insult to women who are actually ladies by comparing them to the former lot, since they would never have a desire to murder their children like a bloodthirsty savage.
One's body is in actuality not entirely one's own, but given to one by nature, therefore society has a right to dictate that they use it responsibly (e.x. suicide is illegal), just as we have a right to dictate that pet owners not cause harm to their pets.
calling it misogyny is an insult to women who are actually ladies
Oh? What makes one a "lady"? Waiting until after marriage before having sex?
One's body is in actuality not entirely one's own, but given to one by nature, therefore society has a right to dictate that they use it responsibly
Why should society dictate what we do with our bodies? That makes no sense. If anything, the fact that we are given our bodies by nature shows that it should be us, the natural owners, who should have full control.
e.x. suicide is illegal
It shouldn't be. Obviously I do not wish for people to commit suicide, but if we want to help people out of making that sort of decision, making it "illegal" (which is entirely pointless. You can't be arrested for something when you're dead) is not the solution. Increase in funding for mental health and suicide support groups is the solution.
just as we have a right to dictate that pet owners not cause harm to their pets.
This is not a valid comparison. A pet is not a part of our body. Harming a pet is like harming another human.
If a foetus cannot survive outside a woman's womb then it is still a part of the woman, and therefore the woman has the choice.
I support anyone's right to do whatever they want with their body. That does not mean I wish for them to be in the circumstance in which they have to.
I support your right to commit suicide, but I'd hope and encourage you not to exercise that right.
Equally, I support the right to abort a foetus, but again, I'd encourage you to think twice and make sure you believe this is what you really want.
[b]Oh? What makes one a "lady"? Waiting until after marriage before having sex?[/b]
Marriage is a formality. Responsible people do not just have sex with any and everything, and then murder their child to avoid their own personal responsibility of their actions.
[b]One's body is in actuality not entirely one's own, but given to one by nature, therefore society has a right to dictate that they use it responsibly[/b]
No, one's body is like a animal one owns, so it has objective natural rights independent from the owner (or one's own consciousness).
[b]If a foetus cannot survive outside a woman's womb then it is still a part of the woman, and therefore the woman has the choice.
[/b]
Not at all, since part of the woman or not, one doesn't have rights to use one's body irresponsibly. And even prior to its ability to survive it has separate DNA and mental consciousness, so it deserves as much protection as an infant does.
No it isn't. Your body is not some separate life form from you.
A cat is a completely different life form. Your body is your life form.
Not at all, since part of the woman or not, one doesn't have rights to use one's body irresponsibly.
It is more irresponsible to give birth to a child whilst you are living in poverty and knowingly cannot support and raise your child.
Of course, you'll just say "give the child up for adoption!". But are you personally willing to adopt a child? Is any pro-lifer? Sure, some might be... The majority? Even half? A quarter? Certainly not.
The problem with pro-lifers is that they do not care about what happens to the child after it is born. They get on their high horse when it's just a foetus, but dismount once that child needs benefits and healthcare and housing.
This is a claim sometimes made to argue that the pro-life position should also support funding for welfare and other social programs in order to be "truly" pro-life. It's predicated on the false notion that the lefts solutions are the only ones that represent caring for people.
Not at all, having sex even with protection still has a possible risk of pregnancy. The most responsible thing to do would be to avoid the act of intercourse entirely and use self-discipline if one knows they are not in a financial or stable position for unintended consequences.
Plus people can still be physically intimate without having intercourse (coitus), so this argument is laughably juvenile.
Many responsible women find that, after they are married, their husbands insist on disregarding condoms. Are they then "Irresponsible whores"?? In MANY circles ... especially religious ones, the man of the house is the boss. You could call him the "creator of irresponsible whores". It's obvious you think getting pregnant is likely the woman's fault, the "irresponsible whore's" fault! Many "responsible" women know they can't AFFORD another baby, they don't WANT another because it will make life horrible for the "lives she is already [responsible] for! Her "irresponsible husband" can't see beyond his own dick! Sex should be a two way street, with BOTH responsible! Some of us should "zip-up" until we GROW UP!
Yes I forgot I was addressing a trailer trash American who needs yet more schooling ..... Read it and weep you thick fuck :)
, a fetus or foetus (/ˈfiːtəs/; plural fetuses or foetuses) is a prenatal human between the embryonic state and birth. The fetal stage of development tends to be taken as beginning at the gestational age of eleven weeks, i.e. nine weeks after fertilization.
You obviously have connection to the internet. You don't need a Masters Degree to look information up. I'll give you a hint, if there is a word you are confused on and you are using Chrome, you can highlight the word, right click and then hit the Search Google "the word you highlighted" option.
"Antique and fine arts collector , lecturer in fine arts"
Biographical Information
Name: Joseph Brown
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Independent
Country: Italy
Religion: Atheist
Education: Masters
Your Masters Degree is not working out to well for you if you can't spell. So when you lecture on the fine arts i really hope you don't have to use a chalkboard !
Ah , the spelling police have caught up with me , thank you for that evaluation of how my life is panning out because the US spelling police are on to me :)
It's good of you to take time out from blowing dick and obsessing about Muslims to do your John boy Walton routine and whine over ....... Spelling ....you're truly a sad fuck
It is indeed funny ,it's more amusing when ' called out ' by this idiot who fails to realise my usage of the term is commonplace on this side of the planet .
He is indeed consistent as he never once addresses an argument but instead looks for missed commas , full stops , etc ,etc , :)
Don't worry I won't ban you the way you ban everyone with a different opinion to your moronic world viewpoint .
So go ahead and whine away and remember your god totally supports abortion .... OUCH :)
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?
Oh dear :) you're going against your ' loving ' god .....
what gives you the right to live outside hell .. :)
That's such an insightful reply that if a little above normal replies received a pat on the back, your (seemingly) empty head would be smashed with a club.
Psalm 14. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Some of them like to pretend they are good people......trying to fool themselves and others because they need to feel like they are too good to be frying in Hell like eternal sausages with their bones smoldering coals in the bonfire.
Psalm 14. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Some of them like to pretend they are good people......trying to fool themselves and others because they need to feel like they are too good to be frying in Hell like eternal sausages with their bones smoldering as coals in the bonfire of Hell....and it's good to know God will keep evil subdued forever in the bonfire of Hell.
9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
Considering that you gave in to reason easily this time...
If your deity does not harvest you in about 10 years, then you're all my crops. And I certainly am not as tolerant as the secularists. I'll see to it that even the most religious of you yield to my will.
What makes me think you would? You can already follow such a religion for hopes of forgiveness, so you'd do anything to escape punishment.
Will you pray to whatever I want you to if you'd otherwise be punished? Well, that's what you're already doing, anyway.
Psalm 14. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Some of them like to pretend they are good people......trying to fool themselves and others because they need to feel like they are too good to be frying in Hell like eternal sausages with their bones smoldering coals in the bonfire.
If a woman chooses to abort , she does not violate in any way the foetus's right to life , what she is doing is depriving it of sustenance provivded by her body , over which it does not have a right .
I provide the accepted by most term ..foetus ...which the uneducated among us have never heard so their minds go into instant turmoil , possibly never to recover from such a revelation
Psalm 14. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Some of them like to pretend they are good people......trying to fool themselves and others because they need to feel like they are too good to be frying in Hell like eternal sausages with their bones smoldering coals in the bonfire.
Frankly, you were you the moment you were conceived. If you have a problem with that, why not tell the Indians they should have killed you in your mother's womb?
Wow ! Why do you claim yourself as a Christian and if you say you believe in the words and deeds of Jesus ( you don't ) is this how Jesus would address another ?
Thanks for that Mint 😊 I like this definition it's pretty accurate .....
FOOL
1. One who is destitute of reason, or the common powers of understanding; an idiot. Some persons are born fools, and are called natural fools; others may become fools by some injury done to the brain.
I wonder is he a natural fool or the other type who would be deserving of our collective pity 😉
Well our ' mutual friend ' would seem to be the result of a rather unfortunate gene strain ; and I would think the sort of individual that requires a users manual with a screwdriver 😱
It's so easy to pick on him or poke at him (which I kind of have fun doing since he's so predictable and I'm no saint) but I honestly feel sorrow for him. He has so much pride he's blinded by it but he stands by his convictions, however wrong I think they may be, so at least there's something. I can't respect him but I do feel sorry for him.....even when I have poke at him.
I am very well aware of how Jesus addressed people who strive against the truth. He was much more blunt and forceful, much more direct and clear in his speech than me....He flatly called them hypocrites when He pointed out their hypocrisy, flatly called them children of Hell and of their father the devil when he talked about their motives and efforts, flatly called them thieves when he pointed out their covetousness, flatly called them whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones when He pointed out their false claim of having value as leaders.
They crucified Him because they hated Him for telling them the truth. He exposed them in front of the people they were tying to control. They did not crucify Him for the teachings of His you claim to appreciate. They did not crucify Him because He was a nice guy like you seem to think I should be. They crucified Him because He told them the truth and they hated Him for it....and He said if I follow Him, they will hate me the same as they hated Him....and they do. You are a wonderful example of people who hate me the same as they hated Jesus. I have done nothing wrong to you. I have not stolen from you, I have not harmed you in any way.....yet at this point, if Christians in the Western World were still being treated as they were throughout most of the past two thousand years, you would either be cheering my torture and execution or you would be totally apathetic and uncaring, shrugging it off as "oh well, didn't like the guy anyways".
It's making a point, Dermot...first, the reference to the Indians is word play on his screen name alluding to his bitterness toward a world full of pain and suffering.
If they guy does not want to believe it was him the moment he was conceived, it would have been no harm to him if he was killed inside his mothers womb, in fact it would have spared him from being in a world overflowing with pain and suffering.
Sometimes I forget that it is easy to go over people's heads when their logic is not based on truth.
Perhaps it should me mandatory that men be sterilized when they hit puberty. Nothing permanent just a procedure that will render ejaculation ineffective in producing a child until such time that they are both married and want children, then the procedure can be reversed. After all, men should be as free to decide what they do with their own bodies as women, right? This would be a great way to make sure there are no surprise pregnancies.
Note: this is said ....kind of....with sarcasm....kind of.
All rights are a function of power. Nothing else. The fetus is properly understood as lacking even the capacity for interest, let alone any power to pursue and secure such interest. It is a dubious position, then, to speculate that the fetus might have any right as it wholly lacks what elements are requisite to possessing rights in the first. The woman, on the other hand, certainly has interests and will have whatever power she is able to secure for herself against competing interests from other interest bearing and agency exerting agents who might seek to hinder her pursuit of her interests.
It is not a question, then, of what rights the fetus might have since it cannot properly be understood within the domain of rights. The question is whether the woman will secure for herself a right to secure her interest, or whether others shall prevent her from doing so. That those others profess to do so and even succeed under the mantle of the "right of the fetus" does not mean the fetus actually has any right, because the fetus lacks the capacity to possess unto itself a right. It is not the fetus which has power over the woman, but those who erroneously represent the fetus as having such a power.
If I'm a living person, but I have zero power to defend my right to life, R U saying I have no right to life?
Yes. The caveat being if someone else uses their power on your behalf. But it does all reduce to power, and if power isn't in your favor then you have no rights. That's just a de facto reality.
Hm, let's see if I can find another way to explain it...
As opposed to a natural rights theory, wherein rights exist objectively or are inherent to persons, my position is that rights are instead something people make up. A "right" refers to a claim of entitlement to or from something, generally in relation to our interactions with others. A right exists, then, only where there is a sufficient degree of power to enforce the claim it expresses. Where more popular rights theories would observe that your right has been violated, in my view there simply is no right to be. If it ever was before, it ceases to be in the moment where your power or the power of those who hold you in their interest is insufficient to secure that right to your person. We might secure rights on our own as individuals against others, or in collaboration with others against others. Similarly, others might secure rights against us. But in all cases, rights merely express the preponderance of power between the relevant agents in question. (I wouldn't call it "society", because I don't really believe such a thing exists... but that's another matter, really.)
Yes. We agree that rights do not exist objectively. Cool
I'm with ya until the part where a right ceases to exist the moment it is taken from you. IMO it's still exists in the sense that you can reclaim that right if, as you say, you can wield the power to do so.
Now I think I understand your perspective. We are close, but not identical.
Still seems to me that you or society can claim a right even though you can't always defend it. Though, I do see your point that when you can't defend it, you effectively don't have it. But to me, it still exists.
Yes, I think I understand your point. In your view, it is sufficient to a right existing that a claim of its existence is made. Whether that claim is actually realized doesn't matter. Does that sound accurate?
What confuses me in this account is that it seems that every right would be both a right and not a right at once. Presumably one would not claim to have a right if someone else were not threatening what one is claiming a right to in the first place, which suggests that the right exists to one party and not to another at the same time. For instance both the fetus and the woman do and don't have the respective rights in question at the same time. The realization of the claim seems necessary to identifying whether or not someone has a right, then.
For that reason, at least, that's why I think that a claim alone is not sufficient to saying a right exists. Perhaps you could say that it exists in concept, but I'm not sure what the utility would be in making such an observation. If I claimed that I could bench 200lbs but couldn't, one could say that I can do it in theory but it wouldn't seem reasonable to say I could bench 200lbs because I claimed I could. Similarly, even if a right exists in concept it doesn't make sense to me to say it actually exists if it isn't realized beyond the claim.
Several religious fanatics said to me that the babies can be born and they will adopt them. But if you can't have babies of your own isn't that God telling you you an unfit parent and he dont want you to have them ?
Nothing beats the right to protect yourself. It's amazing that many of the same characters that insist on a gun "to protect themselves" are the same ones who wish to take that RIGHT away from a woman!
The fetus is not a person until it can survive outside the mothers womb. Until such time its nothing more than a parasite that lives off the host body of the mother.
Correct, other than fundamentals such as life, liberty, pursuit of happiness people have no absolute 'right' over their body beyond what the state decides anyway.
In philosophical reality, mind and body are separate aspects of one's self, with the body being more akin to a horse which you ride, or a vehicle which you pilot, rather than your consciousness itself.
And one's body is not theirs to do with as they wish, suicide for example is illegal, but is something entrusted to them by nature to care for responsibly.
So of course society and law have a right to enforce proper ownership over one's body to a certain extent, and punish those who treat it irresponsibly, just as "buying a dog" doesn't give one full right to do anything they want with it, such as torture or kill it.
So yes, the right of the life of the baby trumps the imaginary "right" of irresponsible individuals to murder it simply to sate their own blood lust. Much as the right of a child also trumps the "right" of it's stepfather to molest it or force it into prostitution.
Correct, other than fundamentals such as life, liberty, pursuit of happiness people have no absolute 'right' over their body beyond what the state decides anyway.
Your statement right there negates quite a bit of your argument.
Liberty:
1.
the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
2.
the power or scope to act as one pleases.
The woman should have the liberty to chose how she treats her body. Your belief that abortion is correlated to blood lust is grossly ignorant and is too absurd to be taken seriously.
So a woman's body is a "horse" to be ridden by anyone who wants, or thinks he has the right, and SHE has no say in the matter?? YOU are an irresponsible, macho, tyrant who thinks he has the right to control a woman's mind AND body! You are one of the reasons we HAVE women's rights movements. GO WOMEN!
