|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:57 pm
divineseraph i wonder...how far do rights actually go? are you for segregation? say a racist shopowner puts out a sign, "whites only"- his store, he decides what goes on inside of it. his property, his property's integrity. regardless of your morals on black people, why should your morals trump his right to decide what goes on in his store? keep in mind, despite what neth may tell you, i am not racist. i DO however, play devils advocater an make reference to racism since abortion is rather similar- it is the singling of a group of people who can legally be treated less than others. Rights go only as far until they violate other people's rights. You have a right to be a racist just so long as it doesn't violate the rights of other people.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:30 am
  I wish it was easy enough so that was always the case, but sometimes rights conflict. The fist meets the face both ways.
The right to bodily domain violates the right to life, so how can you say that it's okay as long as it doesn't violate other rights? You clearly think (just like I do) that some rights trump other rights, so it's okay even if it does violate someone else's rights at times. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:36 am
lymelady I don't attempt to convert anyone. I'm open to changing. If someone can convince me that the right to bodily integrity overrides the right to life, then yes, I'll change my tune. No one's been able to yet. I don't want to be stuck in a mindset just because it's what I'm used to believing. If anyone can offer something I haven't thought of before, there's something new to think about. I will admit that if I saw a Pro-Life argument that actually showed me that the right to life was more important than the right to control one's own body, I would change my view on this issue. However, since both are legal rights, and bodily integrity has been shown through legal precedent to trump the right to life, I really don't see how the same "rules" wouldn't apply to this topic. That is just me, and quite a few Pro-Choicers (though not all, some have different reasons for being Pro-Choice). The Debate quip was low. I'm sorry. I do understand that the Debate is Pro-Choicer-rific and so it is practically impossible for any Pro-Lifer to go in there and not get swarmed. Since this is not comfortable, or easy, I do understand why many Pro-Lifers in here choose to avoid the Debate. lymelady Debating for the sake of debating does nothing. It's a waste of time. I debate so that I learn. I don't want to change other people as much as I want to be changed. I want to expand my sphere of knowledge and I want to see if there's anything out there I haven't heard yet. If I wanted to try and "convert" you and Peer, I'd have asked McPhee to explain why the right to life trumps the right to bodily integrity, instead of the other way around, or I'd have tried to explain it. See, I'm pretty sure that I'm rehashing stuff I've said before -- from when I was allowed in the regular PLG. Personally, I was explaining a view point that you were trying to get an explanation of. I assumed that you had already read my previous statements (since I thought, though I might be mistaken, that you had replied to those a long time ago...?) and so had already gotten any knowledge on the subject I might be able to share. Therefore, I was merely debating because I enjoy debating. So much so that I will debate just about any topic into the ground (and occasionally beyond). And let's face it, I have already heard the majority of Pro-Life arguments as to why the right to life should trump bodily integrity. I saw that. Isn't that amazing? If medical technology can save an almost 22 week old premature baby, abortion should not be available at that time -- but inducing the pregnancy or a C-Section should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:13 am
Except the thing is, you sometimes say things that you haven't said before, or really, I suppose you word it differently and it makes something in my brain snap. I enjoy debating with you because you make me think. Same goes with Peer.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the bodily integrity thing...before I thought of it as the government not being able to tell women what to do with their bodies because that's how it had always been worded. Now it's just that the government shouldn't be able to tell women that something needs to live in her body, but they can tell her what has to happen to her body to remove it. If I was pro-choice, I don't think I could do that, even if I kept thinking a fetus was a person the whole way through. I'm trying to get myself in the mindset where I'd be able to accept that as a personal philosophy. I'm still looking for answers, and even if you think you're not giving them to me, you are, I'm just slow xd
The why debate it comment was originally aimed at Peer, btw...I'm really bad at this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:44 pm
and how, exactly, am i racist?
are you not judging me based on false pretences? now i remember why i didn't like you. it begins with a hypo and ends with a cracy.
but personal nitpicks aside- until they violate the rights of others...
huh...
the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. is this not overridden by abortion? is a fetus not killed? is it's right to life not quashed here? if a black man has the right to stay in a racist's store, then a fetus has a right to stay in a woman's uterus. either way, a right is being violated. however, abortion KILLS. pregnancy inconveniences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:15 pm
Because their right to life violates the right to bd, and I have told you several times that I value BD more highly than life. Divine: You're a racist because I've seen you call Nethilia a ****** and I've seen you call me a "half-breed wop jap". How is that a false pretense? More importantly, how is an observation of you being a racist for saying racist things hypocritical?. 1) The Declaration of Independence =/= legal document. 2) Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty are infringed upon by life in this case. 2) I never said a black man has a right to stay in a racists store. If a racist wishes to refuse service to a person of a different ethnicity, they have the right to do so, so long as they own the property in question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:05 pm
you are mistaken, i have never called either of you either of those things.
i can understand the mistake made by nethelia. i was making a refference to when black people were not considered people, but farm equipment. this is a true fact of the time. in those times, "niggers", as they were called, were no more than farm animals. they were lwoer than humans and, like feti now, had no rights. i was comparing the position of a fetus now to the struggle of black people in colonial america.
and i never vaguely hinted at any racial slur anywhere NEAR you. quote me if you can, but you are either full of s**t entirely or have me mistaken for someone else
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:34 pm
divineseraph you are mistaken, i have never called either of you either of those things. i can understand the mistake made by nethelia. i was making a refference to when black people were not considered people, but farm equipment. this is a true fact of the time. in those times, "niggers", as they were called, were no more than farm animals. they were lwoer than humans and, like feti now, had no rights. i was comparing the position of a fetus now to the struggle of black people in colonial america. and i never vaguely hinted at any racial slur anywhere NEAR you. quote me if you can, but you are either full of s**t entirely or have me mistaken for someone else So you weren't seraph88XX or whatever then? It was over a year ago seraph. rolleyes Obviously I don't have it pasted down somewhere to pull out to prove that you're a racist every time it comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:39 pm
divineseraph you are mistaken, i have never called either of you either of those things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:46 pm
ThePeerOrlando2 Because their right to life violates the right to bd, and I have told you several times that I value BD more highly than life. Divine: You're a racist because I've seen you call Nethilia a ****** and I've seen you call me a "half-breed wop jap". How is that a false pretense? More importantly, how is an observation of you being a racist for saying racist things hypocritical?. 1) The Declaration of Independence =/= legal document. 2) Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty are infringed upon by life in this case. 2) I never said a black man has a right to stay in a racists store. If a racist wishes to refuse service to a person of a different ethnicity, they have the right to do so, so long as they own the property in question. That's exactly what I said.
"The right to bodily domain violates the right to life, so how can you say that it's okay as long as it doesn't violate other rights? You clearly think (just like I do) that some rights trump other rights, so it's okay even if it does violate someone else's rights at times."
So it's not true that people have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights; sometimes they have the right to do what they want even if it DOES interfere with someone else's rights, in your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:03 pm
lymelady Except the thing is, you sometimes say things that you haven't said before, or really, I suppose you word it differently and it makes something in my brain snap. I enjoy debating with you because you make me think. Same goes with Peer. I think just about everyone in the PLG I've gotten to talk with has said such things to me at one point or another. It's a fun feeling. lymelady I'm still trying to wrap my head around the bodily integrity thing...before I thought of it as the government not being able to tell women what to do with their bodies because that's how it had always been worded. Now it's just that the government shouldn't be able to tell women that something needs to live in her body, but they can tell her what has to happen to her body to remove it. If I was pro-choice, I don't think I could do that, even if I kept thinking a fetus was a person the whole way through. I'm trying to get myself in the mindset where I'd be able to accept that as a personal philosophy. I'm still looking for answers, and even if you think you're not giving them to me, you are, I'm just slow xd I don't know. It just has seemed fair, to me, that the right to remove an other human from your body should be there -- but that the method can be set by other forces for specific reasons. I suppose that many people who are Child-Free might disagree with me, but I would much rather that unborn humans be kept alive if they are going to be removed. Of course, I would also rather that people be working on getting a 100% effective, fool-proof contraceptive (I can dream at least) first. Fetal transplant or artificial wombs, or both would also be welcome. If you are slow, I must barely be moving -- or perhaps going backwards. *wink* lymelady The why debate it comment was originally aimed at Peer, btw...I'm really bad at this. Sorry. I tend to just start responding to things and get carried away. *grin*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:07 pm
lymelady ThePeerOrlando2 Because their right to life violates the right to bd, and I have told you several times that I value BD more highly than life. Divine: You're a racist because I've seen you call Nethilia a ****** and I've seen you call me a "half-breed wop jap". How is that a false pretense? More importantly, how is an observation of you being a racist for saying racist things hypocritical?. 1) The Declaration of Independence =/= legal document. 2) Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty are infringed upon by life in this case. 2) I never said a black man has a right to stay in a racists store. If a racist wishes to refuse service to a person of a different ethnicity, they have the right to do so, so long as they own the property in question. That's exactly what I said.
"The right to bodily domain violates the right to life, so how can you say that it's okay as long as it doesn't violate other rights? You clearly think (just like I do) that some rights trump other rights, so it's okay even if it does violate someone else's rights at times."
So it's not true that people have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's rights; sometimes they have the right to do what they want even if it DOES interfere with someone else's rights, in your opinion. Ah, ok. Then let me extrapolate what I was saying; "Your rights extend to the point where they interfere with another's rights, and then those rights are prioritized and the person with the higher right supercedes the one with the lower priority right."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:08 pm
Lorysa divineseraph you are mistaken, i have never called either of you either of those things. I know he was seraph8X, but was he seraph88XX too or was that just someone muling him to be an a**?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:07 am
on the first one, youy are mistaken but by misunderstanding. i never called neth "******". i did not say anything implying or meaning "you are a ******" or "shut up ******", even though my using these words now puts me at risk for being taken that way again. i was making a parallel to the 1800's when slaves had no legal rights to now when feti have no legal rights. i used the "n" word for emphasis on the racist feeling of the time, much similar to the "clumps of cells" mentality of this time.
i was a Seraph8x, yes, but 88XX was not me, if this person existed.
as for yours, i never said that, nor did i know your nationality until yesterday...and even now, i don't know what a "wop" is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:25 am
divineseraph and even now, i don't know what a "wop" is. I don't either. Is it German? Wait, I'll look it up... I guess it is Italian - it stands for "With Out Papers". Huh. Peer, Divine, I'm going to ask you guys to either cut it out or take it to PMs. This is both not on topic, and not going to solve anything. I mean, I'm not really one to talk at this point, but I am trying to do that whole "keeping things under control" thing that I'm supposed to be doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
