Abortion is morally wrong

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure that there's any specific right invoked there - legal or "made up".

Weak correlation to self determination, of course - as most. The self as property, and private property no less, of the self.

I suppose we could try to lump that in with -other rights not herein expressed but acknowledged to exist unless otherwise stated- clause at the end.

Again, applies to the US.

edit: (i think that last clause in our bill is the best clause in the whole thing, btw..lol - it's acknowledgement by the author that he probably hasn't thought of everything in a few bullet points)

[GrandizerII]

I don't live in the US, but again, even if I did, rights are still not set in stone. What may be legal rights now in US may not be in the future, and vice versa.

Actually, I suspect even Cthulhu will agree that we're not just discussing legal rights in the US. But I'll see what he says.

Also, I'm guilty of wording his previous analogy wrong. My bad. He was referring to the right to safety and choosing not to save someone from drowning if he deems it too risky.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, sounds legit. He has a right to his person, you can't compel him to risk that person. It has to be voluntary. A religious person sees some things as being dangerous -to their person- that you may not. Such as performing an abortion or being involved in, let alone facilitating, a blood transfer. How do we compel them without violating that right?

You and I would likely call that illusory danger - but we can't act on that justification without violating their right to religious belief and expression.

If it's voluntary - and we're okay with that...are we going to be okay with people being able to voluntarily waive other rights?

See how quickly we get stuck in the mire?

[GrandizerII]

Yeah, sounds legit. He has a right to his person, you can't compel him to risk that person. It has to be voluntary. A religious person sees some things as being dangerous -to their person- that you may not. Such as performing an abortion or being involved in, let alone facilitating, a blood transfer. How do we compel them without violating that right?

Yes, I'm saying that I'm of the view that their "right of conscience" should be overridden by the right of the client to receive medical procedure they want. If they're not up to it, then my view is that they shouldn't be in those specific fields where their rights of conscience will be violated.

Answering your edit: I say "fuck religious right" if it's going to conflict with other rights that are arguably more important. I'm not saying that they must be objectively more important. I'm saying my view is there are more important rights than right of religious expression.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then you have an unresolved analysis of that claim pages ago - which I distinctly recall making. It was uncomfortable, sure, but I applied that line of reasoning to another one of our rights. I'm not totally up to date on Cthulus portion of the same line - I'm sure he'll be along to clear it up.

I agree with your view - but add that we do not seem to be able to -compel them- to adopt our view or act on our view without either asking them to, or allowing them to; waive a right. I'm comfortable with neither, at present.

[Angrboda]

I don't think you're getting me. For example, is the right to save a child from drowning a legal right or a "made up right"?

That's covered by the right of bodily autonomy.

I don't care if you draw examples from different nations, but it's patently ridiculous of you to invent examples out of thin air to prove a point at issue with respect to the real world. That's arbitrary, begs the question (by asserting what you need to prove), and does nothing to illustrate your overarching point that, in your view, some rights supercede the rights of conscience and bodily autonomy which Cthulhu mentioned. Not only are such ersatz rights readily dismissed as bollocks, they do nothing to advance the question of whether rights recognized in national law are susceptible to the same objection. If not, then your "made up right" becomes an irrelevant exercise.

(And for what it's worth, I think all rights are indeed "made up." Unfortunately, the majority position is that "rights" refers to a class of objectively existing moral facts about the world. Your entire diatribe about the arbitrariness of rights may be interesting speculation, but it belongs in some other discussion. The only reason we're even discussing it is because you couldn't think up a defensible real world example of a recognized right that supercedes the rights of conscience and bodily autonomy with justification. Even if I admitted your hypothetical "rights" ex hypothesi, they would then fail to justify themselves as being both worthy of recognition and of elevation over these other recognized rights; it isn't as if the entire world has somehow "overlooked" the brilliance of positing such things as rights -- they've been discussed and disregarded previously. Those that made the cut are now law; those that didn't, aren't.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Ever feel like you're being upstaged at every turn? Rasetsu! I'm thinking of using that as a substitute curse word around my kids.

son of a bitch.....

[Jackalope]

Glad to see you two have picked up the discussion in my absence. Sadly, I'm not up to resuming my part at present, I did a bit too much celebrating last night. I'll jump back in a bit later when my head clears. :p

[TheGamingAtheist]

If abortion did not exist we would have:
-Too many hungry children in the USA. There are already way too many dying from starvation and living in the streets as it is.
-Too many homeless families. We already have a HUGE problem with this.
-More contributors to pollution.
-Worthless parents who are using their children as drug mules, child prostitutes for income and beating the shit out of them.
-More children that are in foster care or being adopted simply because their biological parents are unfit.

Why should someone be forced to have a child if they cannot care for it? Do you wish them to have to go through the pain of birth just because they decided to fuck someone? Is this not what we are built for? We have grown into a species that is suppose to procreate but if we continue to have more births simply because it is morally wrong....then we have an earth that is jammed with too many mistakes, too many mouthes to feed and too much chaos for any of us to willing deal with. I would much rather someone have an abortion than to bring a child into this world and not give that child what they need. Fetus' cannot feel pain or acknowledge what pain is. Abortions aren't suppose to be performed after a certain amount of time anyways....of course it does happen but on the plus side..that "baby" doesn't know what is going on or what is happening. They have yet to experience that.

[GrandizerII]

I don't think you're getting me. For example, is the right to save a child from drowning a legal right or a "made up right"?

That's covered by the right of bodily autonomy.

I don't care if you draw examples from different nations, but it's patently ridiculous of you to invent examples out of thin air to prove a point at issue with respect to the real world. That's arbitrary, begs the question (by asserting what you need to prove), and does nothing to illustrate your overarching point that, in your view, some rights supercede the rights of conscience and bodily autonomy which Cthulhu mentioned. Not only are such ersatz rights readily dismissed as bollocks, they do nothing to advance the question of whether rights recognized in national law are susceptible to the same objection. If not, then your "made up right" becomes an irrelevant exercise.

(And for what it's worth, I think all rights are indeed "made up." Unfortunately, the majority position is that "rights" refers to a class of objectively existing moral facts about the world. Your entire diatribe about the arbitrariness of rights may be interesting speculation, but it belongs in some other discussion. The only reason we're even discussing it is because you couldn't think up a defensible real world example of a recognized right that supercedes the rights of conscience and bodily autonomy with justification. Even if I admitted your hypothetical "rights" ex hypothesi, they would then fail to justify themselves as being both worthy of recognition and of elevation over these other recognized rights; it isn't as if the entire world has somehow "overlooked" the brilliance of positing such things as rights -- they've been discussed and disregarded previously. Those that made the cut are now law; those that didn't, aren't.)

Right of bodily autonomy is a right I consider to be one of the top important rights. Are you strawmanning me? Or do you say that because you consider the mind/conscience to be part of the body?

Objectively existing moral facts? No, hold on. You're assuming there are objectively existing moral facts. Actually, there aren't any because morality stems from human thought rather than from from nature. As you said, they are all initially "made up".

Also, rights that have been considered and dismissed by certain nations are not necessarily dismissed by other nations. It is also possible they may be considered in the future by the same nations that currently don't consider them as legal rights.

So there's some good thinking in your post, but I think you need to reconsider some of the points you've made.