Report: 23 Pro-Life Organizations Vandalized, Firebombed by Pro-Abortion Activists in Recent Weeks

[crossfire]

Rights apply to all. When special treatment is given to some, but not all, these are no longer rights, but are called entitlements. Entitlements limit who are the recipients. Rights apply to all.

Word games are making this harder than it needs to be. Name me one "male right" that can discriminate against women and take them out of the equation? There are no male rights, only human rights. Only entitlements can make the straight crooked.

The entitlement mentality is regressive. It is throwback to the era of monarchies. Monarchies had been the way of the world since the beginning of civilization. This changed with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

These changes led to a nation of the people and by the people, without any monarchies. Monarchies were entitled. The common people had no rights. The idea of human rights did not occur under monarchies. This type of right applied to all people and not just the King and this court.

The Democrat Party wants to go back to a monarchy form of government; dual justice system. This is regressive. since it takes away human rights, such as free speech. Free speech is a right that applies to all, and not just to a select group, who can censor, so they can created lopsided data for their scams.

Right to choose is not a right unless men are also part of that choice 50/50. This is a really a regressive type of entitlement that is in the flavor of pre-Constitution, during the era of monarchies.

Free self governing people work in a way that is similar to sports, where one set of rules apples to all the players. We all start out the game of life being equal under the law, with the difference of our ability and hard work allowing for different in outcomes. There is only one league MVP based on merit. Nobody is above the law and nobody can cheat to be crowned MVP by decree.

The monarchy approach would entitle the Prince to always win, even if he was the worse player on the field. He would be given a different set of laws, such as off with your head if you do not make him look good. One can see this in Liberal Social Policy. If you do not agree, you are racist or sexist,which used to be able to kill careers or business; off with your head.

Sports is a better way, where all play by the same rules and everyone plays to win, but after the game we stay friends; one nation. The monarchy can cheat, since they fear loss of power to what they feel they are entitled too; dirty politics and dual justice.

Excuse me? What makes you entitled to a 50% say over what I do with my body? I think you are projecting your own personal feelings of entitlement onto others and accusing them of feeling entitled instead of facing your own feelings of entitlement. Do you not recognize any personal boundaries? Your making the claim over 50% of my body makes me 50% your slave. Slavery has supposedly been abolished, except perhaps in your mind. My body is not community property!

 

[Sand Dancer]

That's typical of democrats. They support violence when it suits their political goals.

It's typical of extremists, left and right. Stop generalizing. It doesn't sound very mature.

 

[Brian2]

You got the accusation wrong. Should a corpse have more rights than a woman?

I'm having trouble seeing the relevance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm having trouble seeing the relevance.

That is the problem with all antichoice people. A corpse has more rights than pregnant woman, That is not right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm having trouble seeing the relevance.

Bodily autonomy.

You're demanding that a pregnant woman be compelled to provide the fetus with the use of her body against her will.

At the same time, as a society, we uphold the right to bodily autonomy as even higher than the right to life: if someone else - even your own child - needs to use your body to live and you say "no," your wishes are respected.

They continue to be respected even after your death... which is where the corpse part comes in.

If your child needs some of your bone marrow, or one of your kidneys, or even just a pint of your blood or they will surely die, you still get to refuse. You even get to refuse having these things taken from your corpse after you die.

That's the right you're trying to deny to pregnant people.

 

[Brian2]

That is the problem with all antichoice people. A corpse has more rights than pregnant woman, That is not right.

I agree, that is not right, but that is premised on the fetus not being a living human being.
That is the problem with pro choice people.
But of course that is the dichotomy that has been set up, but the reality is probably that neither of us are so hard in our positions that there is no room for moving. That balance is what the law is about. The balance between the rights of a woman and the rights of an unborn.
Of course there will always be people for whom there is no room for moving.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree, that is not right, but that is premised on the fetus not being a living human being.
That is the problem with pro choice people.
But of course that is the dichotomy that has been set up, but the reality is probably that neither of us are so hard in our positions that there is no room for moving. That balance is what the law is about. The balance between the rights of a woman and the rights of an unborn.
Of course there will always be people for whom there is no room for moving.

NO, it isn't. This has been explained countless times. A person does not even have the rights to a corpse if he needs it to live. The problem is that even if a fetus is a person, it does not have a right to tell another person what they have to do with their body. And frankly a fetus does not appear to be a person. An embryo definitely does not qualify as one.

 

[Brian2]

Bodily autonomy.

You're demanding that a pregnant woman be compelled to provide the fetus with the use of her body against her will.

At the same time, as a society, we uphold the right to bodily autonomy as even higher than the right to life: if someone else - even your own child - needs to use your body to live and you say "no," your wishes are respected.

They continue to be respected even after your death... which is where the corpse part comes in.

If your child needs some of your bone marrow, or one of your kidneys, or even just a pint of your blood or they will surely die, you still get to refuse. You even get to refuse having these things taken from your corpse after you die.

That's the right you're trying to deny to pregnant people.

I suppose in a perfect world a person would not deny the rights of our family to access our organs after we die.
Also in a perfect world a woman would not deny the right to life of an unborn.
Instead of going for equality of denial rights, the best thing to do would be to go for equality pro life rights all round.
It is always a tough choice for law makers to balance rights of course, but that is what it usually comes down to except for extremists who don't want to do that balancing act and just outright deny the rights of a certain group over another group.

 

[F1fan]

I have given money to the church I went to for this very reason during a special collection for a young woman in need.

But some women need reproductive freedom and you say no even through it's none of your business.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose in a perfect world a person would not deny the rights of our family to access our organs after we die.
Also in a perfect world a woman would not deny the right to life of an unborn.
Instead of going for equality of denial rights, the best thing to do would be to go for equality pro life rights all round.
It is always a tough choice for law makers to balance rights of course, but that is what it usually comes down to except for extremists who don't want to do that balancing act and just outright deny the rights of a certain group over another group.

The burden of proof is of course on those that wish to restrict the rights of others. The anti-choice people cannot seem to come up wit a valid reason for their actions.

 

[Brian2]

The burden of proof is of course on those that wish to restrict the rights of others. The anti-choice people cannot seem to come up wit a valid reason for their actions.

The basic reason no doubt is that they feel the unborn is a living human.
That is a valid reason but is open to dispute, and of course has been disputed by people wishing have some form of demarcation line as to when the unborn becomes a living human.
The reasons to say the unborn is not a human provide justification for lawmakers to draw a line but the reasons are not proof and seem arbitrary.
The common sense approach is that from conception there is a living human who is going through different stages of development.
That point has been pushed later and later and up to the point that some people want to abort up till the time of birth.
Why do you think that the burden of proof is on the pro lifers when we are talking about the rights of not just the woman but also an unborn human who has not personal say in things and just has to rely on the love and goodness of others up until the age when he/she can fend for itself.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But some women need reproductive freedom and you say no even through it's none of your business.

You dismiss the fact the there is another potential person involved. It is not about removing anyone's rights but about upholding rights of people that have no say. Women have reproductive freedom. I am for responsible reproductive freedom you are not.

 

[F1fan]

You dismiss the fact the there is another potential person involved.

It's been law for 50 years, and it was law because women were dying seeking illegal abortions, and now we are back to that dark age because of religious beliefs.

What gives you the right to say one way of the other about what a women decides for herself? How many do you actually know?

It is not about removing anyone's rights but about upholding rights of people that have no say.

Zygotes and fetuses aren't people with legal rights. Nothing in the constitution says they do. This is the fatal flaw in your anti-choice stance. You keep pretending it's there, but it isn't. The proof that there are no rights for zygotes and fetuses is because many red states tried to pass personhood laws, and all failed as far as I know. So they know these zygotes have no rights like we born people with birth certificates do. Your position is flawed and makes assumptions that are not legally valid.

Women have reproductive freedom.

Not any more in at least 30 states. More are likely to ban abortion services.

I am for responsible reproductive freedom you are not.

No you are assuming a responsibility FOR women that you don't know, and they did not give to you. You are assuming an authority to make important moral decisions that you don't have the right to do. You are in essence a bully who wants to impose a religious view onto a secular nation, and take away the difficult freedom that women found for and had for 50 years. Your side of this issue is the minority and your side abused politics to ban abortion access in many states. You can't color this abuse of politics against women and then claim you haven't taken away their personal freedom to decide their reproductive options.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You dismiss the fact the there is another potential person involved. It is not about removing anyone's rights but about upholding rights of people that have no say. Women have reproductive freedom. I am for responsible reproductive freedom you are not.

And since you are trying to affect the rights of others you take on the burden of proof. You need to prove that a fetus is a person.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It's been law for 50 years, and it was law because women were dying seeking illegal abortions, and now we are back to that dark age because of religious beliefs.

Separate but equal was law for over 50 years, should that have been kept? How long a law has been on the books has no bearing on its constitutionality. It is not because of religious beliefs, have you read the decision?

What gives you the right to say one way of the other about what a women decides for herself? How many do you actually know?

I know a lot of women. The fact is that there is another potential person involved that I have argued has a right to life.

Zygotes and fetuses aren't people with legal rights. Nothing in the constitution says they do. This is the fatal flaw in your anti-choice stance. You keep pretending it's there, but it isn't. The proof that there are no rights for zygotes and fetuses is because many red states tried to pass personhood laws, and all failed as far as I know. So they know these zygotes have no rights like we born people with birth certificates do. Your position is flawed and makes assumptions that are not legally valid.

That is not my position. I agree they do not have rights. My arguement has been that the deserve rights because of their potential to be a person.

Not any more in at least 30 states. More are likely to ban abortion services.


No you are assuming a responsibility FOR women that you don't know, and they did not give to you. You are assuming an authority to make important moral decisions that you don't have the right to do. You are in essence a bully who wants to impose a religious view onto a secular nation, and take away the difficult freedom that women found for and had for 50 years. Your side of this issue is the minority and your side abused politics to ban abortion access in many states. You can't color this abuse of politics against women and then claim you haven't taken away their personal freedom to decide their reproductive options.

I am not religious so I do not want to impose any religious views on anyone. I actually want to eliminate decisions based on religious views. You don't even know my argument against abortion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My arguement has been that the deserve rights because of their potential to be a person.

So you are saying that your neighbor has a right to your kidney if he needs it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And since you are trying to affect the rights of others you take on the burden of proof. You need to prove that a fetus is a person.

No I do not. That is not my argument, please read it again.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So you are saying that your neighbor has a right to your kidney if he needs it.

No. I have no moral responsibility since I did not create that situation. I have a moral responsibility to a fetus if I created it with my actions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The basic reason no doubt is that they feel the unborn is a living human.
That is a valid reason but is open to dispute, and of course has been disputed by people wishing have some form of demarcation line as to when the unborn becomes a living human.
The reasons to say the unborn is not a human provide justification for lawmakers to draw a line but the reasons are not proof and seem arbitrary.
The common sense approach is that from conception there is a living human who is going through different stages of development.
That point has been pushed later and later and up to the point that some people want to abort up till the time of birth.
Why do you think that the burden of proof is on the pro lifers when we are talking about the rights of not just the woman but also an unborn human who has not personal say in things and just has to rely on the love and goodness of others up until the age when he/she can fend for itself.

Even if you believe that the unborn is a "living human" we don't allow "living humans" to use other living humans' bodies against their will.
So what you are actually saying here, is that the unborn should be afforded MORE rights than we afford to fully formed and birthed human beings.