Make a case why women should be denied rights

[Pah]

Instead of arguing for the child, argue against the rights of women - that is the only principle that has created the laws that are constitutional - the rights of women and the limitation placed upon the state. Since this is off-topic here, I'll start another thread in which you can make a case against women.

This thread prompted by my off-topic remark in another thread

-pah-

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Women, like men, should be denied the right to infringe upon the basic human rights of another person. How's that for starters?

 

[Pah]

Women, like men, should be denied the right to infringe upon the basic human rights of another person. How's that for starters?

Why should a woman be denied her established right to her own body and health? Tell me why that right should be usurped by a potential right.

Tell me what precedent the Supreme Court will use to overthrow the right of a woman recognized in Roe v Wade and afirmmed by cases since.

-pah-

 

[linwood]

Tell me what precedent the Supreme Court will use to overthrow the right of a woman recognized in Roe v Wade and afirmmed by cases since.

Pah, you keep arguming law while everyone else is arguing morality.

We`ll never get anywhere.

 

[Rex]

Why should a woman be denied her established right to her own body and health?

Lets take abortion for example. It not only takes a woman but a man as well (excluding not natural pregnancy's and no I won't debate "natural") to have a baby.

Thus if a woman doesn't want the baby and the man does she has the right to abortion. When the man has no say. This doesn't seem fair to me. So I say take away the right of "just" the woman and give it to both parties. Since the man has "no" right over the subject.

And vice versa.

 

[Pah]

Pah, you keep arguming law while everyone else is arguing morality.

We`ll never get anywhere.

I agrue the law because that is the social reality in which you have a moral question. The law, with a system that is completely different from religious thought, must be the one to change toward whatever morality is desired. You must find, within law, a reason to change law.

-pah-

 

[Pah]

Lets take abortion for example. It not only takes a woman but a man as well (excluding not natural pregnancy's and no I won't debate "natural") to have a baby.

Thus if a woman doesn't want the baby and the man does she has the right to abortion. When the man has no say. This doesn't seem fair to me. So I say take away the right of "just" the woman and give it to both parties. Since the man has "no" right over the subject.

And vice versa.

Yep! You've got the picture. It is a principle of law that where the state has no power (as in fetal developement) it can not delegate a power to other interested parties. It is only (fetal development) within the purview of the women.

However, a man must assume post-partum responsibilty. Sorry if the matter is inequitable to your thinking.

A woman can give consent to sex and retain consent for a product of that sex

-pah-

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Why should a woman be denied her established right to her own body and health? Tell me why that right should be usurped by a potential right.

Because a fetus does not have the 'potential' right to live, a fetus is a human being, and all human beings have the inherent right to be alive--be they black, chinese, big, small, young, old, deformed, mentally retarded, disabled, gay, etc. No woman's body has 20 fingers, 20 toes, two hearts, and two seperate blood systems with distinct blood types...half of the preceding belong to an entirely seperate human being living inside the woman. And as I have said in other posts, I think it is morally justifiable for a woman to decide to get an abortion if giving birth poses abnormally large health risks.

Tell me what precedent the Supreme Court will use to overthrow the right of a woman recognized in Roe v Wade and afirmmed by cases since.

I don't know what precedent. It may well be the case that the way the Constitution is phrased, the way court cases have been historically decided, and the practices of states prior to Roe v. Wade all force a judge (who is contrained by those things in his/her judgement) to allow women the legal right to abort a fetus. However, I do not think all laws are equal. As Martin Luther King said, there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. Any law or decision that infringes on a person's right to live is unjust, and I feel morally obligated to fight it in any nonviolent way possible, even if it is all in vain.

 

[Pah]

Because a fetus does not have the 'potential' right to live, a fetus is a human being, and all human beings have the inherent right to be alive--be they black, chinese, big, small, young, old, deformed, mentally retarded, disabled, gay, etc. No woman's body has 20 fingers, 20 toes, two hearts, and two seperate blood systems with distinct blood types...half of the preceding belong to an entirely seperate human being living inside the woman. And as I have said in other posts, I think it is morally justifiable for a woman to decide to get an abortion if giving birth poses abnormally large health risks.

And that is where we disagree

I don't know what precedent. It may well be the case that the way the Constitution is phrased, the way court cases have been historically decided, and the practices of states prior to Roe v. Wade all force a judge (who is contrained by those things in his/her judgement) to allow women the legal right to abort a fetus. However, I do not think all laws are equal. As Martin Luther King said, there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. Any law or decision that infringes on a person's right to live is unjust, and I feel morally obligated to fight it in any nonviolent way possible, even if it is all in vain.

And this is where I agree with the court.

The same procedure that Martin Luther King relied on is the same that permits a women to rule her own body. Civil disobedience, in the name of pro-life, has been put down or limited by the same procedure that gave Martin Luther King hope.

I feel obligated to support the right of a woman because I do not recognize a person until that person is born or that person may be birthed without risk to the woman. I choose woman and that is as moral a stance as what you hold.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The same procedure that Martin Luther King relied on is the same that permits a women to rule her own body. Civil disobedience, in the name of pro-life, has been put down or limited by the same procedure that gave Martin Luther King hope.

I'm not sure what you mean here. The procedure by which Martin Luther King determined right from wrong was his own inner sense of justice, not the rulings of any court. The Supreme Court was a means to an end for him, not the procedure by which to figure out that segregation was unjust. He could figure that out for himself.

I feel obligated to support the right of a woman because I do not recognize a person until that person is born or that person may be birthed without risk to the woman. I choose woman and that is as moral a stance as what you hold.

I utterly and completely fail to see how a fetus is not a 'person', pah, but to each his own. I maintain what I said in my last post.

 

[Pah]

I'm not sure what you mean here. The procedure by which Martin Luther King determined right from wrong was his own inner sense of justice, not the rulings of any court. The Supreme Court was a means to an end for him, not the procedure by which to figure out that segregation was unjust. He could figure that out for himself.

I was thinking more along the lines of the procedure that recognized and actuated in society his inner feelings. The ends are tarnished if the means are not good - I'm sure you'll agree to that. Because there is a diversity of ends in society, the means are all important and this is where I'm focused. If the court makes a ruling unfavorable to my liberal views and they do it on a sound analysis and application of the law, I have to accept it. While many would consider the law an end in itself, it is only used as a means for enhancing or controlling society

I utterly and completely fail to see how a fetus is not a 'person', pah, but to each his own. I maintain what I said in my last post.[/QUOTE]
To each his own.

-pah