ABORTION.......

Doktor S wrote:

Rights are arbitrary, I was suggesting a distinction based on reason

No, you are suggesting a distinction based on merit, based on earning it.

Your concept of rights has some folks 'worthy' and others not.

The American concept of rights, including the right to life cannot be based on your standard. It is arbitrary, as you admit.

Americans have stood for rights, not based on the whim of government but on the worth of the individual. We have fought (sometimes each other) , bled and died for rights based on a very different concept than what you espouse.

We'll stick with the Founders idea of rights, but there are plenty of totalitarian states around the world where your ideas would fit right in. Why don't you visit some of them?

Your view is not based on reason, but on the arbitrary use of power to kill or save alive based on your own personal whim. You'll be very popular in many countries of the world. Just not here.

No, I really don't.
Rights are arbitrary, I was suggesting a distinction based on reason. As there are no 'inherent' rights, humans must set the standard.

Quote:

No, I really don't.
Rights are arbitrary, I was suggesting a distinction based on reason. As there are no 'inherent' rights, humans must set the standard.

So,if rights are arbitrary,then you would have no problem with anyone taking away the "right" to have an abortion?
After all,arbitrary things can be given AND taken away.

Thank you for actually admitting that.

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

No, I really don't.
Rights are arbitrary, I was suggesting a distinction based on reason. As there are no 'inherent' rights, humans must set the standard.

So,if rights are arbitrary,then you would have no problem with anyone taking away the "right" to have an abortion?
After all,arbitrary things can be given AND taken away.

Thank you for actually admitting that.

An admission sort of implies I am conceding a point. I am not.
There are no 'rights', there is simply the status quo.

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Rights are arbitrary, I was suggesting a distinction based on reason

No, you are suggesting a distinction based on merit, based on earning it.

Your concept of rights has some folks 'worthy' and others not.

The American concept of rights, including the right to life cannot be based on your standard. It is arbitrary, as you admit.

Americans have stood for rights, not based on the whim of government but on the worth of the individual. We have fought (sometimes each other) , bled and died for rights based on a very different concept than what you espouse.

We'll stick with the Founders idea of rights, but there are plenty of totalitarian states around the world where your ideas would fit right in. Why don't you visit some of them?

Your view is not based on reason, but on the arbitrary use of power to kill or save alive based on your own personal whim. You'll be very popular in many countries of the world. Just not here.

Nice rhetorical rant, but totally irrelevant.
I have suggested the distinction for 'rights' should include 'being alive on your own, free of symbiosis'
In all of your emotion fueled ranting and raving about american patriotical nonsense you never did get to countering my assertion with one of your own, nor show why it may be problematic.

Doktor S wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

No, I really don't.
Rights are arbitrary, I was suggesting a distinction based on reason. As there are no 'inherent' rights, humans must set the standard.

So,if rights are arbitrary,then you would have no problem with anyone taking away the "right" to have an abortion?
After all,arbitrary things can be given AND taken away.

Thank you for actually admitting that.

An admission sort of implies I am conceding a point. I am not.
There are no 'rights', there is simply the status quo.

If there are "no rights",then this whole discussin is meaningless.
If there are no "rights",then there is no right to abortion.
You cant say there are no rights,then say that there is a right to an abortion.
Either there are,or there are not,you cant have it both ways.

Frank and Chumly,
So you two think that this is all just a joke. Your disregard for human life makes one want to vomit. You have used those words before, Frank, and they are as hollow now as they were the last time yoiu wrote them and the time before that.

You may have hephzibah fooled, but many of us have seen too many of your posts.

Mesquite the A2K Post Monitor strikes again! Don't suppose you bothered to read those posts? I think you might find that I and I'm pretty sure Foxfyre, and Intrepid were referring to someone else calling the fetus a parasite.

I don't think you will find where Intrepid, Foxfyre, or myself called a fetus/child a parasite. :wink:

Mesquite the A2K Post Monitor strikes again! Don't suppose you bothered to read those posts? I think you might find that I and I'm pretty sure Foxfyre, and Intrepid were referring to someone else calling the fetus a parasite.

I don't think you will find where Intrepid, Foxfyre, or myself called a fetus/child a parasite. :wink:

Intrepid does tend to enjoy thinking that only he (and those who define human life as he does) has any real regard for human life.

Strangely, the deaths of teenagers who attempt to do their own abortions during it's prohibition don't seem to bother him at all.

But we've been down this road a few times now.....

Intrepid is contributing his normal nothing. Here is a fact for you.

Parasite.

# Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Sounds like a technical fit to me.

Terry wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species and deriving its nourishment from the host.

A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother. This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

The fetus is indeed a parasite, sucking nutrients from a woman's body (it can deplete her body to the point of death by eclampsia or blood loss) and (assuming it is unwanted and given up for adoption) providing nothing in return but pain and suffering.

The "obligatory dependent relationship" is a product of your own imagination, not a legal or ethical one.

If you had ever experienced the joys of pregnancy you would know that the fetus is not "isolated" from our bodies at all, since it causes morning sickness, backache, heartburn, edema, gestational diabetes, and directly contacts us by stretching our skin until it scars, not to mention repeatedly kicking us in the stomach and bladder. To say that the amniotic sac "isolates" it make no sense at all.

That product of my imagination is shared by many. If the "parasite" can cause death... perhaps it should be considered suicide since the woman has control of her own body (according to you radical types) and she got pregnant through an act that can cause the pregnancy.

Sheesh.... blaming the fetus for stretch marks and weak bladders. This is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.