Thread: Prolife answers on Woman's rights VS Murder/person hood/ZEF Rights

SO since no one ever seems to answer this question I wanted to just make a thread about it.

For those that want abortion to be murder and person hood granted at conception what are your opinions on womens rights.


-do you not accept the fact that this would infringe on current womans rights
-do you not accept the fact that for 9 months the ZEF would have MORE rights that the woman
-you do accept that it would infringe on womans rights but dont care because you think its right
-you do accept that it would give the ZEF MORE rights than the woman but you dont care because you again think its right
- other

and like all 99% of abortion threads Im sure people will try to derail this thread and the nutjobs on both sides will post their nonsense but im hoping to find out at least some info.

Thanks

Originally Posted by Objective-J

-do you not accept the fact that for 9 months the ZEF would have MORE rights that the woman

Excellent point.

How does the ZEF have more rights than the woman?

Originally Posted by tessaesque

How does the ZEF have more rights than the woman?

Currently a ZEF does not so Im guessing you mean "IF" abortion was made murder and person hood was granted at conception and that super easy.

THe ZEF would have MORE rights because the woman would be under the control of the ZEF and government for 9 months.

Things she could do before the pregnancy she now can not and the reason she cant do them is because she is FORCED not to them and is NOT ALLOWED (by law) not to do them or she could be charged with MURDER. And this would all be against her will and choice.

The ZEF would be ranked HIGHER than her for 9 months by GOVERNMENT choice not by her own free will.

Originally Posted by Objective-J

Currently a ZEF does not so Im guessing you mean "IF" abortion was made murder and person hood was granted at conception and that super easy.

THe ZEF would have MORE rights because the woman would be under the control of the ZEF and government for 9 months.

Things she could do before the pregnancy she now can not and the reason she cant do them is because she is FORCED not to them and is NOT ALLOWED (by law) not to do them or she could be charged with MURDER. And this would all be against her will and choice.

The ZEF would be ranked HIGHER than her for 9 months by GOVERNMENT choice not by her own free will.

I think it's more like they would be ranked equally. Neither trumps the other, so neither can do something that would do willful, intentional, or irreparable harm to the other. Since a ZEF is essentially always incapable of causing irreparable harm to the host woman, the obligation to avoid harm falls to the woman.

It would be like saying that somebody who buys a house should have no obligation to maintaining it. We all know that isn't the case. Does the house and neighborhood somehow develop greater rights than the homeowner? Not really, no...the expectations simply change because of voluntary action on behalf of the homeowner. The same would be true of probably 99% of pregnancies. They result from a voluntary action on behalf of the host woman. Because she is now responsible for something that came about from that action, she suddenly has fewer rights?

I'm pro-choice, but not because I think the woman has more rights than the fetus...but rather because I recognize that sometimes the very best outcome from an unexpected pregnancy is the termination of it. It's still the termination of life. It's still a means of shirking off the larger responsibility of parenthood for the smaller responsibility of handling the strains of an abortion. It's still not an ideal, enlightening, empowering process. It's still something we should strive to limit through education and family planning and safe sex practices. But it's also a necessary evil....sometimes. And I say that as somebody who's had an abortion.

We still have not decided as a society at what point ZEF is valuable enough that abortion is no longer acceptable. Even pro-choicers don't support (generally) post-birth or late-term abortions because we all recognize that at some point, it is no longer okay to terminate the ZEF. Why is it that we're empowering women if we take it to the point of viability but stripping away their rights in favor of the ZEF if we move it closer to conception? At the end of the day, what's it matter in terms of rights. There is always a point when a woman is no longer legally allowed to terminate. Moving that point up and down the timeline is just an arbitrary difference in ideology, not an attack on rights.

Originally Posted by tessaesque

I think it's more like they would be ranked equally. Neither trumps the other, so neither can do something that would do willful, intentional, or irreparable harm to the other. Since a ZEF is essentially always incapable of causing irreparable harm to the host woman, the obligation to avoid harm falls to the woman.

It would be like saying that somebody who buys a house should have no obligation to maintaining it. We all know that isn't the case. Does the house and neighborhood somehow develop greater rights than the homeowner? Not really, no...the expectations simply change because of voluntary action on behalf of the homeowner. The same would be true of probably 99% of pregnancies. They result from a voluntary action on behalf of the host woman. Because she is now responsible for something that came about from that action, she suddenly has fewer rights?

I'm pro-choice, but not because I think the woman has more rights than the fetus...but rather because I recognize that sometimes the very best outcome from an unexpected pregnancy is the termination of it. It's still the termination of life. It's still a means of shirking off the larger responsibility of parenthood for the smaller responsibility of handling the strains of an abortion. It's still not an ideal, enlightening, empowering process. It's still something we should strive to limit through education and family planning and safe sex practices. But it's also a necessary evil....sometimes. And I say that as somebody who's had an abortion.

We still have not decided as a society at what point ZEF is valuable enough that abortion is no longer acceptable. Even pro-choicers don't support (generally) post-birth or late-term abortions because we all recognize that at some point, it is no longer okay to terminate the ZEF. Why is it that we're empowering women if we take it to the point of viability but stripping away their rights in favor of the ZEF if we move it closer to conception? At the end of the day, what's it matter in terms of rights. There is always a point when a woman is no longer legally allowed to terminate. Moving that point up and down the timeline is just an arbitrary difference in ideology, not an attack on rights.

Wasnt implying people are pro choice only because the ythink the woman has more rights at all, thats not even a factor even though Im sure some feel that way and want it that way. SOrry if it came off that way.

Thats a nice way of looking at it and its a good post, I like it, but it doenst change the fact the ZEF would have more rights.

The ZEF would be in control and not the women and this control would be forced upon her by government.

The house example is not a parallel at all.
Voluntary sex is also meaningless in the debate.

THe fact would remain that the woman had a freedom to do certain things, a good many things before pregnancy and after would she wouldnt be allowed because of the ZEF. How do you change that fact and logically say that the ZEF doesnt have more rights. The ZEF would be in control of the woman against her will. A will that is taken away from her by force.

Many people misunderstand human rights.

To start with, many people don't understand that there are three general classes of rights. Those classes of rights are: life, security, and freedom (also known sometimes as "liberty").

Also, there are sadly too many people who do not understand that there is a resolution hierarchy with respect to these three classes of rights when human rights are in conflict. That resolution hierarchy is life overrides security which overrides freedom.

For instance, it is generally accepted as a freedom right to keep and bear arms. However, there are laws that say that, though one can keep and bear arms, they can't generally bear them in a public college because that violates the security of others present in the classroom.

And though it is a freedom to bear arms, some arms, like a nuke, are not allowed to be born by the public, as that, obviously threatens the security of everyone in the city.

Murder is illegal because it violates the right to life of the victim. Self-defense is allowed as a right of security to defend one's self. But if someone threatens your life and then that someone walks away, it is a violation of their right to life for you to hunt that person down and kill them, even if you claim that the threat made on your life gave you the security of person right to hunt them down. That's still a violation of their right to life that was truly not in self-defense, and is illegal in most civilized countries.

Freedom rights are generally considered to be rights of action. So though we have the freedom to get a drivers license and drive a car, if we cannot pass the written or driving test, or we get DUIs and stuff, we are a risk to the security of others, and so we can lose our right to drive in the name of the security of others.

It's important when discusing human rights to understand the three classes of rights, how they apply, and the rules for resolving rights in conflict.

There are many rights of freedom.

But no right of freedom can abridge a security right.

And no right of either freedom or security can abridge a right to life.

The most difficult rights to resolve are when the rights are of the same class. For instance, two people are in a park, one reading, the other singing. Both have the freedom right to be in the park and to sing and read. But the reader complains that the singer is disturbing his concentration. How do these two resolve their rights dispute? Somehow, with civility, less one threatens the security or life of the other.

The topical matter comes into play in instances where the ZEF's very presence threatens the woman's life. The ZEF will not go away and will not stop threatening the woman's life. Action is taken to try to ameliorate the "dispute", and though sometimes that works, too often it fails. The woman then takes action to defend herself. In the act of self-defense the ZEF is killed.

Is that murder?

Of course not.

This is all about human rights, and when one's life is in the act of being threatened by another, one has every right to fight back against that act as it is occurring, and if the assailant is killed in the process, no fault is assigned to the survivor, even if the survivor suffers understandably associated trauma.

Now, of course, if a landlord lets a tenant stay, and after a month of paying rent the landlord decides that he doesn't want the tenant there any more and he asks the tenant to leave, if the tenant refuses, the landlord has the security right to pursue due process to effect an eviction. Though the security of each in in play, the law cites ownership as the deciding factor, and the tenant must leave.

However, if it is the dead of winter and there is no place for the tenant to go and the tenant's very life is at risk, it would be a violation of the tenant's right to life to be thrown out into the cold. Thus subsequent care arrangements must first be made before the eviction action can take place.

Human rights are all about recognizing and respecting each other's very lives, security of person, and freedom of action.

Originally Posted by Ontologuy

Many people misunderstand human rights.

To start with, many people don't understand that there are three general classes of rights. Those classes of rights are: life, security, and freedom (also known sometimes as "liberty").

Also, there are sadly too many people who do not understand that there is a resolution hierarchy with respect to these three classes of rights when human rights are in conflict. That resolution hierarchy is life overrides security which overrides freedom.

For instance, it is generally accepted as a freedom right to keep and bear arms. However, there are laws that say that, though one can keep and bear arms, they can't generally bear them in a public college because that violates the security of others present in the classroom.

And though it is a freedom to bear arms, some arms, like a nuke, are not allowed to be born by the public, as that, obviously threatens the security of everyone in the city.

Murder is illegal because it violates the right to life of the victim. Self-defense is allowed as a right of security to defend one's self. But if someone threatens your life and then that someone walks away, it is a violation of their right to life for you to hunt that person down and kill them, even if you claim that the threat made on your life gave you the security of person right to hunt them down. That's still a violation of their right to life that was truly not in self-defense, and is illegal in most civilized countries.

Freedom rights are generally considered to be rights of action. So though we have the freedom to get a drivers license and drive a car, if we cannot pass the written or driving test, or we get DUIs and stuff, we are a risk to the security of others, and so we can lose our right to drive in the name of the security of others.

It's important when discusing human rights to understand the three classes of rights, how they apply, and the rules for resolving rights in conflict.

There are many rights of freedom.

But no right of freedom can abridge a security right.

And no right of either freedom or security can abridge a right to life.

The most difficult rights to resolve are when the rights are of the same class. For instance, two people are in a park, one reading, the other singing. Both have the freedom right to be in the park and to sing and read. But the reader complains that the singer is disturbing his concentration. How do these two resolve their rights dispute? Somehow, with civility, less one threatens the security or life of the other.

The topical matter comes into play in instances where the ZEF's very presence threatens the woman's life. The ZEF will not go away and will not stop threatening the woman's life. Action is taken to try to ameliorate the "dispute", and though sometimes that works, too often it fails. The woman then takes action to defend herself. In the act of self-defense the ZEF is killed.

Is that murder?

Of course not.

This is all about human rights, and when one's life is in the act of being threatened by another, one has every right to fight back against that act as it is occurring, and if the assailant is killed in the process, no fault is assigned to the survivor, even if the survivor suffers understandably associated trauma.

Now, of course, if a landlord lets a tenant stay, and after a month of paying rent the landlord decides that he doesn't want the tenant there any more and he asks the tenant to leave, if the tenant refuses, the landlord has the security right to pursue due process to effect an eviction. Though the security of each in in play, the law cites ownership as the deciding factor, and the tenant must leave.

However, if it is the dead of winter and there is no place for the tenant to go and the tenant's very life is at risk, it would be a violation of the tenant's right to life to be thrown out into the cold. Thus subsequent care arrangements must first be made before the eviction action can take place.

Human rights are all about recognizing and respecting each other's very lives, security of person, and freedom of action.

sooooo
-do you not accept the fact that this would infringe on current womans rights
-do you not accept the fact that for 9 months the ZEF would have MORE rights that the woman
-you do accept that it would infringe on womans rights but dont care because you think its right
-you do accept that it would give the ZEF MORE rights than the woman but you dont care because you again think its right
- other

Originally Posted by Objective-J

sooooo
-do you not accept the fact that this would infringe on current womans rights
-do you not accept the fact that for 9 months the ZEF would have MORE rights that the woman
-you do accept that it would infringe on womans rights but dont care because you think its right
-you do accept that it would give the ZEF MORE rights than the woman but you dont care because you again think its right
- other

My post made it easy for you to resolve relevant questions for yourself.

Questions that are irrelevant are .. well, simply that.

Originally Posted by Ontologuy

My post made it easy for you to resolve relevant questions for yourself.

Questions that are irrelevant are .. well, simply that.

LMAO SO based on your opinion they are irrelevant you will just dodge them, got it.
Like I said in the OP would have been easier for you to just not post instead of trying to derail, be dishonest or not actually answer