Vatican says gays are undeserving of basic human rights.

[MrFun]

I also agree with those who don't think that gay marriage is a human right, but supports gay marriage to support my gay friends and provide support to serious gay relationships.

JM

Marriage is not a basic human right. The Vatican simply made the statement about being opposed to violence against gays to cover their asses.

[MrFun]

I went back and reread the article. It did not say anything that the UN is declaring marriage to a basic human right in their declaration against discrimination against gays.

[Provost Harrison]

I'll never understand why people care about this outmoded concept that is marriage, and the consenting adults who engage in it. Who cares? And surely standing in judgement is against one of the centeal fundamentals of your damn religion? The church and you individuals/sheep who think in the same mode:

[notyoueither]

I went back and reread the article. It did not say anything that the UN is declaring marriage to a basic human right in their declaration against discrimination against gays.

They declared it a human right in the UDHR in ~1948.

[notyoueither]

What's catching up now is that people other than white, hetero, fit men are entitled to the same rights.

[Felch]

The issue always comes down to the question of what a child is. A fetus is a parasite more than a child.

People will always have different definitions and different perspectives.

Which is precisely why it's not the government's business. No one is forcing you to get an abortion. "pro-life" is more big government theocracy pushing its way into a secular government. I'm just sad that some supposedly libertarian people refuse to recognize that.

While you're right that a fetus isn't a child, it is undeniably a human being. Parasites are of a different species than the host. No serious biologist would describe a gestating fetus as a parasite, that's just nonsense.

As far as the libertarian thing goes, I support all sorts of laws that limit violent human behavior. For instance, I believe that parents shouldn't be able to abuse their children. I don't care if they beat or molest their kids in the privacy of their own homes, it's not a matter of personal freedom to harm little kids. As a logical extension of that, I think that it's wrong for a mother to end the life of a gestating fetus. It's a reasonable restriction on human behavior to say that you can't kill somebody who isn't a threat to you. Now if a sonogram revealed that the fetus was packing a 38 special, then abortion would be self defense, but that's an unlikely situation.

Considering how worked up some of you are about extending "human rights" like marriage to everybody, y'all are strangely opposed to human rights like "not being killed" for small and partially undeveloped human beings. Maybe I'm just more progressive then some of you, and I have to be patient with your extreme conservative viewpoints.

[dannubis]

Well at least you have the honesty to admit abortion is murder...I suppose that sets you marginally ahead of the rest of the pro-choice crowd.

xpost

I suppose normal people don't care about the ****ed up value system of a richboy

[Ming]

I think that it's wrong for a mother to end the life of a gestating fetus. It's a reasonable restriction on human behavior to say that you can't kill somebody who isn't a threat to you.

Gee... having a baby could be a threat to the mother... Woman DIE giving birth. Sure, the majority of woman have no problem giving birth with proper medical care... but it happens.
Doesn't a woman have the right to defend herself?

While you're right that a fetus isn't a child, it is undeniably a human being

It isn't a child, but it's a human being... Huh? Again, as stated by others, there is no set definition... many people will disagree on "when life begins" and "what is a human being" or "should a fetus have rights" and just when those rights should start. We do know that the WOMAN has rights, since it is her body.
FREEDOM of CHOICE is just that. If you think it's murder, or it's against your religion, DON'T DO IT. If you have different beliefs, it's your choice.

And FREEDOM OF RELIGION means you don't have to have the Catholic rules crammed down your throat.

[Jon Miller]

There are people who don't think that killing the elderly or people who aren't them is wrong.

Who are you to tell them otherwise.

If you have different beliefs, it is your choice.

JM

[MikeH]

The discussion has moved on. It's no longer about whether it's legal, it's just about what circumstances.

We shouldn't allow fanatics to skewer the debate.

[loinburger]

There are people who don't think that killing the elderly or people who aren't them is wrong.

Who are you to tell them otherwise.

When they have an elderly person physically attached to them then their opinion as to the fate of the elderly person will carry more weight than mine.

[Asher]

While you're right that a fetus isn't a child, it is undeniably a human being. Parasites are of a different species than the host. No serious biologist would describe a gestating fetus as a parasite, that's just nonsense.

As far as the libertarian thing goes, I support all sorts of laws that limit violent human behavior. For instance, I believe that parents shouldn't be able to abuse their children. I don't care if they beat or molest their kids in the privacy of their own homes, it's not a matter of personal freedom to harm little kids. As a logical extension of that, I think that it's wrong for a mother to end the life of a gestating fetus. It's a reasonable restriction on human behavior to say that you can't kill somebody who isn't a threat to you. Now if a sonogram revealed that the fetus was packing a 38 special, then abortion would be self defense, but that's an unlikely situation.

Considering how worked up some of you are about extending "human rights" like marriage to everybody, y'all are strangely opposed to human rights like "not being killed" for small and partially undeveloped human beings. Maybe I'm just more progressive then some of you, and I have to be patient with your extreme conservative viewpoints.

If a fetus didn't like being aborted, why doesn't it say something? Implicit agreement.

[Felch]

Gee... having a baby could be a threat to the mother... Woman DIE giving birth. Sure, the majority of woman have no problem giving birth with proper medical care... but it happens.
Doesn't a woman have the right to defend herself?

Anybody driving down the road could swerve and hit me with their car. That doesn't mean that I can shoot them. Self-defense is only an excuse when you have a good reason to believe that the other person poses a real threat to you. If the woman has good reason to believe that giving birth would kill her, then that's a reasonable argument. However, a pregnancy without complications usually does not result in the mother dying.

It isn't a child, but it's a human being... Huh? Again, as stated by others, there is no set definition... many people will disagree on "when life begins" and "what is a human being" or "should a fetus have rights" and just when those rights should start. We do know that the WOMAN has rights, since it is her body.
FREEDOM of CHOICE is just that. If you think it's murder, or it's against your religion, DON'T DO IT. If you have different beliefs, it's your choice.

And FREEDOM OF RELIGION means you don't have to have the Catholic rules crammed down your throat.

There are definitions. A child is a human between birth and puberty (sometimes extended in legal definitions to the age of majority). A fetus is between the embryonic stage and birth. You can write in caps all you want, this is not a religious argument. No biologist would debate "when life begins," or "what is a human being." The only question that I'm talking about is "should a fetus have rights." I believe that all humans should have human rights, and I believe that a fetus is human. There's nothing religious about this. If you disagree with the idea that a fetus is a living human being, you should come up with some evidence to support that claim.

By the way, claiming that a fetus is part of the woman's body is baseless. It's clearly a separate organism, although not a parasite, because it is of the same species. If women don't like that, tough. We don't always get what we want. Part of having rights is the responsibility to respect the rights of others. It's why we wait at traffic lights and don't steal our neighbor's mail.

[Ming]

There are people who don't think that killing the elderly or people who aren't them is wrong.

Straw man crap... and you know it. Old people and people who aren't them are PEOPLE by EVERY definition of law in this country and they do indeed have rights. To kill them is indeed murder.

That is NOT the case with a fetus. You can PERSONALLY have a BELIEF that life begins with conception, but that's not the way EVERYBODY looks at it, and the law (at this point in time in this land) disagrees with you.

And I will say again, having a baby can be a death sentence for a woman... shouldn't she have the right to defend herself?

[Jon Miller]

So you are saying that those people just need to change the law?

That then you would be OK with it?

And who here is talking about if having a baby would cause the woman to die. Doctors deal with this sort of thing in medical situations all the time. Think of two people in an accident, both need urgent care, but there is only one they can save.

It is a straw man for you to bring this up and use it as a defense of abortion. Treat it the same as two people needing a heart transplant and only one heart existing...

JM