The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Skylar]

Once you exist, you have the human right to live.

I don't think you get what 'rights' are. There's no such thing as a 'right' to use someone else's body. Rights are freedoms. They aren't obligations. Your conception of rights is exactly backward. The woman isn't using the body of the embryo. The embryo is using hers. She has a right to be free from that use. She has no obligation to the embryo....or anyone or anything else.

The embryo doesn't have a 'right' to the use of any else's body. As that's an obligation. Which by definition, isn't a right.

Do you get the difference between freedoms and obligations? They're antonyms. Yet you're using them interchangeably.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once I destroyed your absurd notion that she had every right to alter 'a part of her body,' you attempted the oh-so-childish 'throw out the invader.;

And when have I claimed that the embryo is 'part of her body'? Never. If you believe otherwise, quote me.

You're scripting, refuting arguments I've never made, not even reading what you're replying to. Even your arguments are scripts, cut and paste whole from whatever website you've chosen to do your thinking for you. And you don't even have the courtesy to attribute the quotes you're mechanically apeing to their source:

11) The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.

The Case Against Abortion Part of the Mother 8217 s Body

I can always tell right where your script ends and your own thoughts begin. As that's when the silly name calling starts. You don't think. You don't reason.

You merely repeat what you've been told to think. And I don't think you actually understand what you're repeating

I've seen your posts.... How long did it take you to develop that supine morality?

One would believe you to be quite used to being called "silly names."

 

[koshergrl]

Of course it has a right. It's called the human right to live.

Rights are freedoms. They're not someone else's obligations. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Each of us has it, and nobody has the right to deny it to us without good cause.

You're free to live as you will. You're not free to use my body to do it. That's not what freedom is, that's not what a right is. If your existence mandates the intimate use of my body, I have every right to deny you that use based on my exclusive control over the use of my own body. And I can deny the use of my body to anyone I choose.

That you lack the capacity to exist without me creates no obligation on my part. Nor right on your part.

Neither does it give you the right to kill someone for using your body, unless their use threatens your life. We gonna talk in circles all night?

Again, the embryo lacks the capacity to live on its own. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Infants lack the ability to live on their own as well. As do many people who are grown. Being unable to care for yourself in no way gives others the right to kill you.

Again. These are basic human rights concepts. The vulnerable deserve and are entitled to protection. If the only person who can provide that protection is a mother, then she is obligated to provide that protection until she can safely offload her responsibility onto somebody else.

 

[koshergrl]

Once you exist, you have the human right to live.

I don't think you get what 'rights' are. There's no such thing as a 'right' to use someone else's body. Rights are freedoms. They aren't obligations. Your conception of rights is exactly backward. The woman isn't using the body of the embryo. The embryo is using hers. She has a right to be free from that use. She has no obligation to the embryo....or anyone or anything else.

The embryo doesn't have a 'right' to the use of any else's body. As that's an obligation. Which by definition, isn't a right.

Do you get the difference between freedoms and obligations? They're antonyms. Yet you're using them interchangeably.

I know exactly what rights are, and I know what human rights violations are.

It is a human rights violation to kill the weak and vulnerable for no other reason than they are a hindrance.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Once you exist, you have the human right to live.

I don't think you get what 'rights' are. There's no such thing as a 'right' to use someone else's body. Rights are freedoms. They aren't obligations. Your conception of rights is exactly backward. The woman isn't using the body of the embryo. The embryo is using hers. She has a right to be free from that use. She has no obligation to the embryo....or anyone or anything else.

The embryo doesn't have a 'right' to the use of any else's body. As that's an obligation. Which by definition, isn't a right.

Do you get the difference between freedoms and obligations? They're antonyms. Yet you're using them interchangeably.

I read once where Americans have the Rights to LIFE, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They were called inalienable rights. Unless you're an unwanted....unborn baby.

 

[Skylar]

Of course it has a right. It's called the human right to live.

Rights are freedoms. They're not someone else's obligations. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Each of us has it, and nobody has the right to deny it to us without good cause.

You're free to live as you will. You're not free to use my body to do it. That's not what freedom is, that's not what a right is. If your existence mandates the intimate use of my body, I have every right to deny you that use based on my exclusive control over the use of my own body. And I can deny the use of my body to anyone I choose.

That you lack the capacity to exist without me creates no obligation on my part. Nor right on your part.

Neither does it give you the right to kill someone for using your body, unless their use threatens your life. We gonna talk in circles all night?

Again, the embryo lacks the capacity to live on its own. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Again, the woman has no right to kill another human, unless her life is threatened. I guess this really is a circle jerk.

The embryo has no capacity to live without the use of her body. A body it has no right to that use. And she has ever right to deny it. That the denial results in the death of the embryo in no way changes her freedom to deny the use of her body to anyone. Or the lack of any right by the embryo to obligate such use.

What you're describing is slavery. Where she must submit the use of her body to another entity against her will....and in the most intimate way possible. She doesn't have to do any of that.

 

[koshergrl]

"
Human rights are moral principles or norms[1] that describe certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in national and international law.[2] They are commonly understood as inalienable[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings"[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.[3] They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal,[1] and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone.[3] They require empathy and the rule of law[6] and impose an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others.[1][3] They should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances,[3] and require freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution.[7]"

Human rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..."

—1st sentence of the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

[koshergrl]

"Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

—Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

 

[Carib Gyal]

Of course it has a right. It's called the human right to live.

Rights are freedoms. They're not someone else's obligations. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Each of us has it, and nobody has the right to deny it to us without good cause.

You're free to live as you will. You're not free to use my body to do it. That's not what freedom is, that's not what a right is. If your existence mandates the intimate use of my body, I have every right to deny you that use based on my exclusive control over the use of my own body. And I can deny the use of my body to anyone I choose.

That you lack the capacity to exist without me creates no obligation on my part. Nor right on your part.

Neither does it give you the right to kill someone for using your body, unless their use threatens your life. We gonna talk in circles all night?

Again, the embryo lacks the capacity to live on its own. That it lacks the capacity to survive without the use of the woman's body creates no obligation on the part of the woman. As the embryo has no right to the use of anyone's body. While she has every right to the use of her own.

Again, the woman has no right to kill another human, unless her life is threatened. I guess this really is a circle jerk.

The embryo has no capacity to live without the use of her body. A body it has no right to that use. And she has ever right to deny it. That the denial results in the death of the embryo in no way changes her freedom to deny the use of her body to anyone. Or the lack of any right by the embryo to obligate such use.

What you're describing is slavery. Where she must submit the use of her body to another entity against her will....and in the most intimate way possible. She doesn't have to do any of that.

Jeez. A newborn baby has no capacity to live, unless someone cares for it. I would say using her body by an act she herself caused trumps the right to murder.

 

[koshergrl]

"
"A child is any human being below the age of eighteen years, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier."[3] According to Cornell University, a child is a person, not a subperson. The term "child" often, but does not necessarily, mean minor, but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children.[4] There are no definitions of other terms used to describe young people such as "adolescents", "teenagers," or "youth" in international law,[5] but the children's rights movement is considered distinct from the youth rights movement.

The field of children's rights spans the fields of law, politics, religion, and morality."

Children s rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The League of Nations adopted the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1924), which enunciated the child's right to receive the requirements for normal development, the right of the hungry child to be fed, the right of the sick child to receive health care, the right of the backward child to be reclaimed, the right of orphans to shelter, and the right to protection from exploitation.[12]

"The United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), which enunciated ten principles for the protection of children's rights, including the universality of rights, the right to special protection, and the right to protection from discrimination, among other rights.[13]"

Sorry, skylar. You don't get to discriminate against children just because they're super young.

 

[Skylar]

I know exactly what rights are, and I know what human rights violations are.

You clearly don't understand what rights are, as you're insisting that your rights are obligations from other people. There's no such relationship.

Rights are freedoms. Your conception of rights is essentially slavery, where a woman must submit her body to be used against her will in the most intimate way possible, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for months on end. And she has no say in the matter, no right to control the use of her own body.

There's simply no such obligation.

You're equating a right with an obligation. And they aren't the same thing.

 

[koshergrl]

I know exactly what rights are, and I know what human rights violations are.

You clearly don't understand what rights are, as you're insisting that your rights are obligations from other people. There's no such relationship.

Rights are freedoms. Your conception of rights is essentially slavery, where a woman must submit her body to be used against her will in the most intimate way possible, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for months on end. And she has no say in the matter, no right to control the use of her own body.

There's simply no such obligation.

You're equating a right with an obligation. And they aren't the same thing.

Read the definitions above.

You need to educate yourself.

 

[koshergrl]

"The Declaration of the Rights of the Child is the name given to a series of related children's rights proclamations drafted by Save the Children founder Eglantyne Jebb in 1923.

Jebb believed that the rights of a child should be especially protected and enforced, thus drafting the first stipulations for child's rights.

Jebb's initial 1923 document consisted of the following criteria:

1. The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development, both materially and spiritually.
2. The child that is hungry must be fed, the child that is sick must be nursed, the child that is backward must be helped, the delinquent child must be reclaimed, and the orphan and the waif must be sheltered and succored.
3. The child must be the first to receive relief in times of distress.
4. The child must be put in a position to earn a livelihood, and must be protected against every form of exploitation.
5. The child must be brought up in the consciousness that its talents must be devoted to the service of its fellow men."

Declaration of the Rights of the Child - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"
In 1989, the Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by UN General Assembly. On September 2, 1990 it became international law with one notable exception: the US signed the Charter but has not ratified it. The Convention consists of 54 articles that address the basic human rights to children everywhere are entitled:

• the right to survival;
• the right to develop to the fullest;
• protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation;
• the right to participate fully in family, cultural and social life.[3]"

"Under the Convention, a child is defined as "... every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier."

 

[Agit8r]

Once again Don PoliticalSpice Quixote is on her futile crusade to tear down the wall of separation between church and state.

There is no such "wall, " you uneducated dunce.

The KKKer, Hugo Black, FDR's first Supreme Court nominee, inserted it and dopes like you believe that the concept was not anathema to the view of the Founders.

1. The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ... First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The wall of separation was part of case law much earlier:

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES. LII Legal Information Institute

In any case, abortion before "the quickening" was legal at the time of this country's founding.

You might want to read something other than ridiculous propaganda if you don't want to continually make an ass of yourself.

 

[Skylar]

"
"A child is any human being below the age of eighteen years, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier."[3] According to Cornell University, a child is a person, not a subperson. The term "child" often, but does not necessarily, mean minor, but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children.[4] There are no definitions of other terms used to describe young people such as "adolescents", "teenagers," or "youth" in international law,[5] but the children's rights movement is considered distinct from the youth rights movement.

The field of children's rights spans the fields of law, politics, religion, and morality."

Children s rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The League of Nations adopted the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1924), which enunciated the child's right to receive the requirements for normal development, the right of the hungry child to be fed, the right of the sick child to receive health care, the right of the backward child to be reclaimed, the right of orphans to shelter, and the right to protection from exploitation.[12]

"The United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), which enunciated ten principles for the protection of children's rights, including the universality of rights, the right to special protection, and the right to protection from discrimination, among other rights.[13]"

Sorry, skylar. You don't get to discriminate against children just because they're super young.

The UN, huh? Why then does the UN condemn states that criminalize abortion?

Criminal prohibition of abortion is a very clear expression of State interference with a woman's sexual and reproductive health because it restricts a woman's control over her body, possibly subjecting her to unnecessary health risks. Criminal prohibition also requires women to continue unplanned pregnancies and give birth when it is not their choice to do so.....

....States must take measures to ensure that legal and safe abortion services are available, accessible, and of good quality....

....Absolute prohibition under criminal law deprives women of access to what, in some cases, is a life-saving procedure. Even where a clandestine abortion can be performed in a relatively safe, hygienic setting, it may be financially inaccessible for the most vulnerable women. Poor and marginalized women may instead turn to unsafe, self-induced abortions.....

ODS HOME PAGE

Nor has any international court, nor the UN ever found that an abortion is murder, an abuse of a child, a crime against humanity, discrimination against a child based on age, or any violation of any child's rights.

While the UN has found that safe and legal access to abortion is an obligation of a State.

So who, other than yourself, are you quoting as affirming that abortion is discirmination against children, or a violation of any child's right?

 

[Skylar]

Read the definitions above.

You need to educate yourself.

Then why, pray tell, has the UN insisted that states must provide legal and safe access to abortion for women, and have never found abortion to be murder, an abuse of a child's rights, discrimination against a child, a crime against humanity, or any kind of crime?

You do. And?

Oh, and since you've cited the UN as an authoritative legal source, you can never, ever reject them as such in any other thread. I've already bookmarked this thread for exactly that purpose. So...thank you!

 

[Skylar]

Jeez. A newborn baby has no capacity to live, unless someone cares for it. I would say using her body by an act she herself caused trumps the right to murder.

A mother need not care for the child herself. She can have someone else do it. There is no obligation that her body be used. And a newborn infant can live for hours, even days without care.

In the case of an embryo, it can't live at all. And it has no right to the use of any woman's body. Women aren't property owned by the embryo. Women are people, and possess the authority to control the use of their own bodies. Not have them controlled by someone or something else.

Rights are freedoms. They are not obligations.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here is where separation of church and state can be found in the Constitution:

“[T]he First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.” McCollum v. Board of Educationof School District 71 (1948)

And here is where the right to privacy can be found in the Constitution:

“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system.” Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

“If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the conjoining of church and state, where government may not seek to codify religious dogma into secular law, or likewise compel citizens to conform to religious dogma.

The Constitution's right to privacy prohibits government from unwarranted interference in citizens' personal lives, where those who seek to compel a woman to have a child against her will wish only to expand the size of government and increase the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[koshergrl]

"
"A child is any human being below the age of eighteen years, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier."[3] According to Cornell University, a child is a person, not a subperson. The term "child" often, but does not necessarily, mean minor, but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children.[4] There are no definitions of other terms used to describe young people such as "adolescents", "teenagers," or "youth" in international law,[5] but the children's rights movement is considered distinct from the youth rights movement.

The field of children's rights spans the fields of law, politics, religion, and morality."

Children s rights - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The League of Nations adopted the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1924), which enunciated the child's right to receive the requirements for normal development, the right of the hungry child to be fed, the right of the sick child to receive health care, the right of the backward child to be reclaimed, the right of orphans to shelter, and the right to protection from exploitation.[12]

"The United Nations General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), which enunciated ten principles for the protection of children's rights, including the universality of rights, the right to special protection, and the right to protection from discrimination, among other rights.[13]"

Sorry, skylar. You don't get to discriminate against children just because they're super young.

The UN, huh? Why then does the UN condemn states that criminalize abortion?

Criminal prohibition of abortion is a very clear expression of State interference with a woman's sexual and reproductive health because it restricts a woman's control over her body, possibly subjecting her to unnecessary health risks. Criminal prohibition also requires women to continue unplanned pregnancies and give birth when it is not their choice to do so.....

....States must take measures to ensure that legal and safe abortion services are available, accessible, and of good quality....

....Absolute prohibition under criminal law deprives women of access to what, in some cases, is a life-saving procedure. Even where a clandestine abortion can be performed in a relatively safe, hygienic setting, it may be financially inaccessible for the most vulnerable women. Poor and marginalized women may instead turn to unsafe, self-induced abortions.....

ODS HOME PAGE

Nor has any international court, nor the UN ever found that an abortion is murder, an abuse of a child, a crime against humanity, discrimination against a child based on age, or any violation of any child's rights.

While the UN has found that denying safe and legal access to abortion is an obligation of a State.

So who, other than yourself, are you quoting as affirming that abortion is discirmination against children, or a violation of any child's right?

psst...nobody has advocated for "absolute prohibition".

You people just can't stick to the facts to justify baby killing, can you?

You're in good company, though:

"On July 22, 1942, the Fuhrer exhibited a highly positive attitude towards abortion as an indispensable method of dealing with the non-German populations in countries under Nazi control. "In view of the large families of the native populations," he asserted, "it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible." Hitler also personally announced that he "would personally shoot" any "such idiot" who "tried to put into practice such an order (forbidding abortion) in the occupied Eastern territories."

Hitler and Abortion

 

[Carib Gyal]

Jeez. A newborn baby has no capacity to live, unless someone cares for it. I would say using her body by an act she herself caused trumps the right to murder.

A mother need not care for the child herself. She can have someone else do it. There is no obligation that her body be used. And a newborn infant can live for hours, even days without care.

In the case of an embryo, it can't live at all. And it has no right to the use of any woman's body. Women aren't property owned by the embryo. Women are people, and possess the authority to control the use of their own bodies. Not have them controlled by someone or something else.

Rights are freedoms. They are not obligations.

No one else is obligated to take care of a newborn, according to you. People have their rights, which are freedoms not to be infringed upon. Every single person can stand by and allow a newborn to die, and still be within their rights.

But now we must take it a step further. Not only can they do nothing, they also have the right to actively murder it, because they have no obligation to care for it.

Good call.