Abortion is morally wrong

[Dystopia]

Why is this nonsense still being argued?

Because I haven't found a legal way to execute abortions retroactively like Major League Baseball's disabled list.

I'd like to see a viable method to execute abortions retroactively.

[The Grand Nudger]

And yes, I'm sorry to tell you that a right is something that you can waive. That's the point of a right. Nobody else can take it from you, but you can choose not to exercise it. People do it all the time, for example a right to an attorney (self representation), miranda rights, right to privacy (they can be as explicit about their personal lives as they want, its just the government can't force them to).

Choosing not to exercise a right is not the same as waiving it. I'll agree that we do use the phrase "waived their right" but I don't think it means the same in context, with say...waiving ones rights over ones self (as per slavery). Implicit in that arrangement is that you cannot just "take it back", you haven't truly "waived" it, if you could. You simply chose not to exercise it for some given period(it's still there if you can claim self propriety at some future point). Who would buy such a slave? Not me. They're selling a bill of goods.

[FatAndFaithless]

And yes, I'm sorry to tell you that a right is something that you can waive. That's the point of a right. Nobody else can take it from you, but you can choose not to exercise it. People do it all the time, for example a right to an attorney (self representation), miranda rights, right to privacy (they can be as explicit about their personal lives as they want, its just the government can't force them to).

Choosing not to exercise a right is not the same as waiving it. I'll agree that we do use the phrase "waived their right" but I don't think it means the same in context, with say...waiving ones rights over ones self (as per slavery). Implicit in that arrangement is that you cannot just "take it back", you haven't truly "waived" it, if you could. You simply chose not to exercise it for some given period(it's still there if you can claim self propriety at some future point). Who would buy such a slave? Not me. They're selling a bill of goods.

I'm not talking about slavery. I'm talking about a profession that has a set of standards that any entrant into that profession has taken an oath to uphold.

[The Grand Nudger]

-If slavery had a professional association with a motto - would that help?

(I'll say this to you too...these aren't actually my opinions on the matter, I'm just testing the limits of our reading and seeing where they might break. Right now, it's looking like we're considering one right (to ones self) as being of a particular type and another right (religious expression) as another - they don't confer the same benefits/in a similar way, nor are the same criteria used to judge them or their effects. That would be a problem.)

[Dystopia]

A funny thing about rights. It's not supposed to matter what anyone thinks about them. They are rights they should be inalienable. If you can take them away because most people think you should, then they wouldn't be rights.
What if your country did a vote on whether or not you could get married. What if there was 100% voter turn out and every single person except you voted that you should not be allowed to marry. Then you should still be allowed to marry because that is your right. It doesn't matter how other people feel about it.

Of course not rights are not given by the state, they are recognized, this is an idea that has been around since the french revolution, people concluded they had certain fundamental rights since birth, the state could or could not recognize them, but they exist even when repeatedly violated or taken away.

A vote on marriage would be against my constitution, fundamental rights cannot be objects of referendums, this is way our voting on the abortion issue should never have happened, and our constitutional court decided against allowing gay adoption/co-adoption to be voted by our people. They still tried to make the law on the parliament, but even center leftists voted against. It didn't pass.

[FatAndFaithless]

-If slavery had a professional association with a motto - would that help?

Don't be ridiculous. Comparing slavery to the medical profession is insane.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm comparing how we treat the "rights" that each are modified by................

I think it's ridiculous too - that's why I bring it up.

[Losty]

-If slavery had a professional association with a motto - would that help?

Don't be ridiculous. Comparing slavery to the medical profession is insane.

I'm pretty sure our lovely friend Rhythm is simply trying to make a point.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you not see the similarities between the oath and standards and clubs and mottos? I thought that was rich, meh, to each his own.

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm comparing how we treat the "rights" that each are modified by................

I think it's ridiculous too - that's why I bring it up.

No. It's not a valid comparison. Owning another person is defined as illegal. It doesn't matter if someone wants (for some reason) to be a slave, it is still illegal to own another human, and they cannot be owned. Abortion is not illegal. It is a legal, important, helpful (sometimes necessary) medical procedure. If someone wants to become a doctor, they need to hold the standards of practice that comes with the profession. If their religion doesn't like it, tough, they took an oath to serve their patient's wellbeing first.

---

Don't be ridiculous. Comparing slavery to the medical profession is insane.

I'm pretty sure our lovely friend Rhythm is simply trying to make a point.

If Rhythm's trying to make a point, then I admit i'm missing it. This thread has gotten so chaotic it's hard to keep track of all the different conversations.