The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Ethics and the limits of a Bill of Rights > Comments

Ethics and the limits of a Bill of Rights : Comments

By Amanda Fairweather, published 6/11/2009

Despite good intentions a bill of rights is mere symbolism at best, and a danger to the freedom it promises at worst.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. All
King Hazza and his Shadow Minister,
Your argument that “the rights of any one person cannot influence the rights of another” reminds me of the argument for slavery.
It was contrived that slaves had no personhood, therefore they had no rights.
Yours is the same self-serving mentality:
The unborn child has no personhood, therefore they have no rights.
This is an artificial construct based on desired outcomes.
Just as slave owners argued for the right to exploit other humans, so the pro-abortion advocate argues for the right to kill the inconvenient.
There is more evidence for than against the personhood of an unborn child.
Should not the benefit of the doubt then rest with the one whose life is in the balance?
You say that “all your examples are for independent beings, who can be taken care of by others if the original carer walks away. This is not the case for a fetus.”
You create an artificial hierarchy of levels of independence and separability to justify your stance and then cherry pick the level which suits your argument. This is a self-serving fiction.
Furthermore, one doesn’t have to accept “that humans have the sole right over their body”.
For example, society incarcerates those who are a threat to society.
They no longer have “sole right over their body”.
Society does this to protect the innocent.
In a similar manner, society used to protect the unborn.
What happened?
Women realised that they had the power to redefine life.
And we all know that power corrupts.
Posted by HermanYutic, Monday, 16 November 2009 3:36:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Just quickly...)

If the person with the rare blood type has the right not to give it, does a doctor have the right to not refer a woman for an abortion (or onto someone else who will) so long as the dr alerts the woman of her legal rights and the ways that she herself can pursue them? (Again, what the original article was actually arguing...)

Oh and btw I've responded to a few of the questions you have put to Herman but you haven't responded to my responses.
Posted by netjunkie, Monday, 16 November 2009 3:48:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
most men prefer to empower women with their sperm
blow-up latex dolls are available to those who don't.
Posted by whistler, Monday, 16 November 2009 3:57:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If abortion was not legal, how will you force any woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy through to term?"

In America, before Roe v Wade, abortions did happen. But they only happened when necessary to preserve life or because of extreme circumstances.

To the woman who simply doesn't want the inconvenience of the rest of her pregnancy, sure, she wouldn't be able to abort, but that is a good thing.

Remember, if you don't want to conceive, then don't.

"The patient has the right to consult the doctor for medical advice. The doctor has the right to give it in good faith according to her [rights]."
Yep. And if it is not medically necessary for a woman to have an abortion in order to save her life then we are not talking about something she is "owed" by a dr. Rather something she WANTS for social/economic reasons.

"However the reason ‘rights’ come into the discussion is because some people who are in favour of a woman’s being able to have an abortion if she wants, want to use force - the law - to force doctors who find abortion unconscionable, to participate in the process of procuring an abortion. Since their purpose is to infringe the doctor’s right not to refer if not medically indicated, and since the doctor’s not referring to abortion where no medically indicated does not infringe the patient’s right to have an abortion, therefore the patient does not have a ‘right’ to referral to abortion by a doctor who believes abortion is not medically indicated, whether or not the doctor also believes on religious grounds that abortion is immoral."
Brilliant.

Hazza, honestly, some people choose to raise kids even though they probably shouldn't. I think it's great they choose not to abort but they shouldn't choose to raise the kids. So adoption should be more actively encouraged.

Obama supports abortion up until the cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever. At want point do the other pro-abortion-on-demand people on this forum support it til and why?
Posted by netjunkie, Monday, 16 November 2009 4:00:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snore Herman, keep it up, you're doing great!

netjunkie- absolutely provide easy information to organize adoptions, but abortion should still be just as accessible- whether or not any prospective parents were available. Certainly if any couples that would consider adopting instead would simply prefer to do so.

"if you don't want to concieve it- dont"
Obviously people that abort concieved without wanting to- and now that it's happened, there needs to be solutions.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 16 November 2009 7:10:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
netjunkie,

Your comment that "Obama supports abortion up until the cord is cut, for any reason whatsoever" does not do him justice.
Senator Obama is on the record as blocking the Illinois equivalent of the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
"Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”
The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote."
This act sought to ensure that infants who survived abortion would receive due care.
Not if Obama could help it.
Obama thinks that born alive abortion survivors should be left to die because to do otherwise would put an "undue burden" on the abortionist and the "mother".
That's right, chuck them alive in the garbage where they belong.
Think I'm making it up?
Look it up.
Obama's stance makes him the pro-"choice" hero and probably the most radical pro-abortionist in American politics.
Even NARAL refused to speak out against the federal act.
There is simply no getting around the fact that President Obama supports infanticide.
Posted by HermanYutic, Monday, 16 November 2009 10:02:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy