I have read many posts in this forum that
refer to "reproductive rights", and I beg
for clarification. Being a student of
law I have to ask...Is this a natural
right, or is this a personal right. Now,
for those women out there citing this
right be careful how you answer because
the ramifications are huge, and please
understand that every “right” provides
with it new responsibilities. One being
your willingness to extend this right to
men as well as women, by definition the
dna of a man becomes his personal property
and with that comes some interesting
circumstances.
Just for info:
natural right: a right that is conceived
as part of natural law and that is
therefore thought to exist independently
of rights created by government or
society, such as the right to life,
liberty, and property.
Personal right: a right that forms part of
a person's legal status or personal
condition, as opposed to the person's
estate.
All definitions courtesy of black's law
dictionary
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 12-17-04 00:23am
It's a right that we have.. Or should
have and we will not be stripped without
consequence..
That answer your question??
|
neo_1978
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 50 Location: somewhere
Posted: 12-17-04 00:29am
Not really, please understand that I have
no firm opinion on the abortion issue, I
have just never seen the concept of rights
so abused and I had hopes that someone
citing this right could defend it...You
see to even deserve a right one must
understand why that right is deserved or
even needed, and without expressing why
you deserve that right, its hard for an
outsider like me to understand you
reasoning for giving yourself such a
right. And to conclude, you actually
dodged the true question which was: is
this supposed right a natural or personal
right?
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 12-17-04 00:35am
Both natural and personal imho. Why do I
have this right? Because pregnancy does
more harm than good to a persons body and
they should not be forced to go through
something that can potentially harm them
and the law is supposed to protect it's
born people. Is that a good enough
reason? Should the 8 year old girl have
to eat some wheat or be denied communion
because of the morals of the catholic
church? Btw.. Wheat could kill her.
being a student of law I
have to ask...Is this a natural right, or
is this a personal
right.
being a student of law,
you would know already that it is defined
as a fundamental human right. See
planned parenthood v. Casey.
Quote:
one being your
willingness to extend this right to men as
well as women, by definition the dna of a
man becomes his personal property and with
that comes some interesting
circumstances.
I have no problem
with a man exercising his fundamental
human right to end a pregnancy. When a
man becomes pregnant, I support his right
not to be compelled to sacrifice his body
just as I support the right of a woman.
Also, I would like to know the cases so
that I can look them up myself on "dna"
law that you are using for the basis of
your argument. There have been strange
cases where a man has died and his frozen
sperm was then fought over as a part of
his estate. However, to my knowledge, no
one has been successful in arguing that a
man has the right to stop a woman from
obtaining an abortion because half of the
dna is his. Possession is 9/10 of the
law, the old saying goes, and since this
dna joins with the woman's and stays
within the woman's body, the woman gets to
decide whether it stays or not. I would
be more than willing to look over any
cases that you can bring forward to
further illustrate your point.
Quote:
natural right: a
right that is conceived as part of natural
law and that is therefore thought to exist
independently of rights created by
government or society, such as the right
to life, liberty, and
property.
I would direct you to
griswold v. Connecticut, eisenstadt v.
Baird, roe v. Wade, stenberg v. Carhart,
and planned parenthood v. Casey.
Specifically, in griswold v. Connecticut
the fundamental right to privacy was found
to exist and was found to be older than
the constitution and bill of rights
itself. The right to privacy and
personal bodily autonomy have been found
to exist within the constitution as well
as above and beyond the constitution
itself.
Quote:
personal right: a
right that forms part of a person's legal
status or personal condition, as opposed
to the person's
estate.
many, many women have
been able to further define themselves and
their legal status through safe, legal
abortions. I'm curious as to how our
legal status would change if you extended
equal protection under the law to fetus'?
|
neo_1978
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 50 Location: somewhere
Posted: 12-17-04 00:52am
I see we both share interest in the law,
but I fear you still can't compel me to
believe you have a right that simply
doesn't exist, one which you cant even
define, or if you can I would love to hear
the explanation and no right to privacy
does not equal reproductive rights. By
the way, why all the venom I just asked a
simple question?
|
neo_1978
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 50 Location: somewhere
Posted: 12-17-04 00:54am
By the way if a man should magiacally have
your supposed "reproductive rights" should
the law allow him to compel a woman to
abort a fetus he helped concieve if she
refuses?
|
neo_1978
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 50 Location: somewhere
Posted: 12-17-04 01:03am
And no, I dont believe a fetus has rights,
but does that really matter when the idea
of rights can be so manipulated anyway....
|
neo_1978
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 50 Location: somewhere
Posted: 12-17-04 01:18am
Still waiting to find out if I should be
able to leagally force my pregnant
girlfriend to abort the fetus I helped
create I mean don't my rights win if the
fetus has none and if I read pro-life
arguments correctly it would be safer for
her to abort anyway.....Hmmmmmn
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 12-17-04 01:23am
neo_1978
wrote:
i see we both share interest
in the law, but I fear you still can't
compel me to believe you have a right that
simply doesn't
exist,
griswold v. Connecticut 381 u.S. 479
(1965)
docket number: 496, " this law, however,
operates directly on an intimate relation
of husband and wife and their physician's
role in one aspect of that relation...The
association of people is not mentioned in
the constitution nor in the bill of
rights. The right to educate a child in a
school of the parents' choice - whether
public or private or parochial - is also
not mentioned. Nor is the right to study
any particular subject or any foreign
language. Yet the first amendment has
been construed to include certain of those
rights...Association in that context is a
form of expression of opinion; and *while
it is not expressly included in the first
amendment its existence is necessary* in
making the express guarantees fully
meaningful...* the foregoing cases suggest
that specific guarantees in the bill of
rights have penumbras, formed by
emanations from those guarantees that help
give them life and substance*...Various
guarantees create zones of privacy...The
present case, then, *concerns a
relationship lying within the zone of
privacy created by several fundamental
constitutional guarantees*...
*we deal with a right of privacy older
than the bill of rights - older than our
political parties, older than our school
system.*"
griswold really is a fascinating read. I
highly recommend it. Well, now on to the
analysis. The supreme court held in this
case that men and women do have a right to
privacy and that it exists within many
prenumbras of the constitution and bill of
rights. Men and women have a right to
private lives away from the inspection and
direction of the government. That is why
we are not forced to quarter soldiers, we
are not forced to implicate ourselves in
trials (the 5th amendment), we are not
forced to list our associations, etc. A
right to privacy can be defined as a
fundamental human right to be free from
governmental intrusion into personal and
private matters. Yes, this is broad,
however many of the rights we enjoy today
are not explicitly stated in the
constitution and bill of rights. Many of
them are in fact penumbra's and therefore
exist within the vast body of
constitutional law.
Quote:
one which you
cant even define, or if you can I would
love to hear the explanation and no right
to privacy does not equal reproductive
rights.
we don't have the right
to privately decide whether we will or
will not reproduce? Since when?
Quote:
by the way,
why all the venom I just asked a simple
question?
and I answered it.
Indeed, I even asked for the cases you
were using as the basis of your argument.
I think it would be fascinating to read a
case where a woman was found not to have a
right to exert control over her body
because the sperm donor said so. I would
be more than happy to read any such cases
that you can provide.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 12-17-04 01:28am
neo_1978
wrote:
by the way if a man should
magiacally have your supposed
"reproductive rights" should the law allow
him to compel a woman to abort a fetus he
helped concieve if she
refuses?
did you read my first
post at all? I specifically said that
when a man becomes pregnant, I will
support his right to exert control over
his body during his pregnancy. However,
I think we can both agree at this time
that men do not and cannot (again, at this
time) become pregnant. Therefore this
issue really only affects women who *are*
the ones who face pregnancy. Also, I
would direct you to the 14th amendment.
Equal protection clause. Since men are
not compelled by the state to donate use
of their organs, fluids, or bodily
resources; women must equally be protected
and cannot be compelled to continue a
pregnancy against their will.
The law cannot allow the man discretion
over a woman's reproductive choices.
Doing so would put us under men, at least
in the eyes of the law. Since women are
at this time the only sex in the species
to experience pregnancy, the decision of
whether or not to remain pregnant must
rest with them. You cannot force someone
to sacrifice themselves. Again that
equal protection clause is a godsend.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 12-17-04 01:38am
neo_1978
wrote:
still waiting to find out if
I should be able to leagally force my
pregnant girlfriend to abort the fetus I
helped create I mean don't my rights win
if the fetus has none and if I read
pro-life arguments correctly it would be
safer for her to abort
anyway.....Hmmmmmn
you can neither
force a woman to abort nor keep the
pregnancy against her wishes. Again, the
woman is the one donating organs, fluids,
and other bodily resources. You cannot
compell this donation nor can you compell
a woman to obtain an abortion.
As to "your rights" argument, I am not
aware that you have the right to force a
medical procedure on another person
against their will. I am also not aware
that you have the right to any final
decision in this matter (if you are indeed
a man). Since the fetus resides within
the woman's body, is attached to the
woman, and is using her body, the decision
to continue the pregnancy or end it must
rest with the woman.
I know i'm going to be yelled at for this
one but you're part in "creating" it was
minimal to say the least. Your part in
the rest of the pregnancy is all but
non-existent and unless you are there for
the childbirth, you also will not be
experiencing those *ahem* "joys" either.
Pregnancy and childbirth unfortunately
primarily affect women. Since this is an
enormous sacrifice on the part of the
woman, that sacrifice must be voluntary.
If you do not want your girlfriend to
continue the pregnancy, then by all means
discuss your feelings with her. If she
plans on continuing the pregnancy and you
do not want to be involved, you may want
to obtain a lawyer to sign away your
parental rights. If she wants to end the
pregnancy and you want her to continue it,
then unless you can somehow talk her into
gestating, it's not going to happen.
Would you want a society where women were
compelled one way or the other in these
overwhelming decisions? Would you want
women to have to obtain consent from the
men in their lives to exert control over
their lives and bodies?
|
neo_1978
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 50 Location: somewhere
Posted: 12-17-04 11:07am
So finally you have come to my point, when
a woman chooses to abort is she acting out
of some obscure "reproductive right" or
out of her right to non-interference.
Any time you speak of having something
"plugged into you" then you speak of
non-interference. I feel you were
naturally given "reproductive rights" when
you were born and matured to the point of
fertility, but as of yet I can't get
anyone else to give me firm info about
this abstract idea of "reproductive
rights" that the aclu and the pro-choice
movement have come up with...I can't even
get anyone to commit to saying if they are
natural or personal....
I don't agree with abortion and I see it
as a supposed right as well! When you
"choose" to have sex then you know there
is a risk of pregnancy! The true right
lies right there! You have the right to
chose to have sex but why should you have
the right to alter the future? If a fetus
has a heart beat then how is it not alive?
I would really like to hear a solid
opinion on that!
B t w I think in a extreme medical
situation abortion is ok. (ie baby or mom
will die).
|
neo_1978
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Dec 2004 Posts: 50 Location: somewhere
Posted: 12-17-04 11:34am
Newmommy, it seems that we share some
beliefs, and your perception of
"reproductive rights" seems in line with
mine. I do recognize the right for
anyone, even those with retardation, to
reproduce, and I also recognize the right
to block pregnancy, but i'm not quite sure
that abortion should be the last form of
birth control.
I agree completly. I will also add that
some of my beliefs are based in religion
but on that note so is our constitution!!
|
Moira
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 21 Nov 2004 Posts: 302 Location: somewhere where it rains a lot
Posted: 12-17-04 11:48am
newmommy23
wrote:
i agree completly. I will
also add that some of my beliefs are based
in religion but on that note so is our
constitution!!
seperation of church and state.
|
Moira
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 21 Nov 2004 Posts: 302 Location: somewhere where it rains a lot
Posted: 12-17-04 11:48am
neo_1978
wrote:
newmommy, it seems that we
share some beliefs, and your perception of
"reproductive rights" seems in line with
mine. I do recognize the right for
anyone, even those with retardation, to
reproduce, and I also recognize the right
to block pregnancy, but i'm not quite sure
that abortion should be the last form of
birth
control.
what do you recommend instead?
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 12-17-04 11:54am
Again with the keep your legs closed
argument.. I swear it makes me want to
castrate or genitally mutilate the next
person that says it.. Grr!!! What would
you say to infertile people? Should they
keep their legs closed out of sheer
principle or get a free pass to all the
"naughty naughty sex" they want?
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 12-17-04 12:05pm
I would say the right to abort a "fetus"
can not be defined as a human right
because that would give us all the right
to abort a "fetus" as you pointed out men
simply dont have that right unless of
course they become a (and I use this term
lightly) doctor.
I would not say it was a natural right...
Women are not born with a button to press
to abort the fetus once they become
pregnant, a miscarrige occures
spontainously with or without the woman
wanting one and is not a reproductive
right. I would think the pro choice
movement sees it as a personal right and a
personal choice, however I do not see it
as a personal right because I believe it
effects at least two people three if you
include the father... I have a personal
right to make a mess in my own home but
that right stops when the smell effects my
neighbours rights.
I do not know if what I said is right or
wrong as I am not a member or student of
the bar.
