Philosophy of human and women rights

[billcu1]

I don’t understand women’s rights and are they included in human rights? Philosophically speaking. Two thing I have seen are two philosophical schools. Moral relativism and moral universalism (not sure what that one is). And Epistemic arguments.

The basis is that a woman’s body is hers and she can do what she wishes with it. I don’t see this. A person’s body is not there own. As we also believe “bought with a price”. Is killing our unborn children a human rights violation in the name of woman’s (human) rights? The the child is not human. What will it be.

I want to learn the epistemic and relativistic schools to defeat abortion. Prove woman have a duty to responsibilty. And…well I do not understand what “woman’s rights” are there no consistancy.

 

[casslean]

I want to learn the epistemic and relativistic schools to defeat abortion. Prove woman have a duty to responsibilty. And…well I do not understand what “woman’s rights” are there no consistancy.

I’m not sure how this builds into the epistemic or relativistic schools of though, but it is relatively easy to prove that women have a duty to their children, because the law already imposes that duty. Most legal systems hold parents reponsible for failing to provide their children with the necessaries of life - it is a specific offence that is predicated on the understanding that parents have a duty to their children. Where the law fails is in extending that duty to unborn children, because it keeps side-stepping the issue of whether unborn children are persons and thus deserving of protection (and their own rights).

 

[billcu1]

I’m not sure how this builds into the epistemic or relativistic schools of though, but it is relatively easy to prove that women have a duty to their children, because the law already imposes that duty. Most legal systems hold parents reponsible for failing to provide their children with the necessaries of life - it is a specific offence that is predicated on the understanding that parents have a duty to their children. Where the law fails is in extending that duty to unborn children, because it keeps side-stepping the issue of whether unborn children are persons and thus deserving of protection (and their own rights).

How can a child not be a person? Because they’re unborn? IMO is the women would keep their clothes on abortion would not be an issue. They want “fun” and no responsibility. It’s an offense to try to commit suicide, so how can you do with your body what you want. The immoral sins are sins against the body.

 

[casslean]

How can a child not be a person? Because they’re unborn?** IMO is the women would keep their clothes on abortion would not be an issue.** They want “fun” and no responsibility. It’s an offense to try to commit suicide, so how can you do with your body what you want. The immoral sins are sins against the body.

I have to say, attitudes like that are one of the reason the pro-life lobby struggles so much. If I run around naked all day long, I’m still not going to get pregnant (pneumonia, possibly, but not pregnant). Women are not out there getting pregnant all by themselves; responsibility - and blame - has to be equally apportioned.

I’m also not discussing what is or isn’t a moral offense - I think we are all agreed that abortion is a sin, as is pre-marital sex. I’m discussing the legal arguments to address your specific question as to how to extend a “duty” from mothers to unborn children. I don’t know why the law has failed to recognize the personhood of unborn children, and honestly, I’m not sure the law can tell you why it hasn’t done so. But that failure is why we don’t recognize abortion as a crime against the child rather that condoning it as a right of the mother.

 

[Memaw]

I don’t understand women’s rights and are they included in human rights? Philosophically speaking. Two thing I have seen are two philosophical schools. Moral relativism and moral universalism (not sure what that one is). And Epistemic arguments.

The basis is that a woman’s body is hers and she can do what she wishes with it. I don’t see this. A person’s body is not there own. As we also believe “bought with a price”. Is killing our unborn children a human rights violation in the name of woman’s (human) rights? The the child is not human. What will it be.

I want to learn the epistemic and relativistic schools to defeat abortion. Prove woman have a duty to responsibilty. And…well I do not understand what “woman’s rights” are there no consistancy.

You’ve just about answered your own questions. We, woman or men, have no rights except the ones God gives us. We do have a free will and can make choices for good or evil. Choose GOOD, (God). The newly conceived child is ALWAYS human!! Have you ever heard of a woman giving birth to an elephant or a mosquito. Follow God, trust HIM, God Bless, Memaw

 

[Sarcelle]

I don’t understand women’s rights and are they included in human rights? Philosophically speaking. Two thing I have seen are two philosophical schools. Moral relativism and moral universalism (not sure what that one is). And Epistemic arguments.

The basis is that a woman’s body is hers and she can do what she wishes with it. I don’t see this. A person’s body is not there own. As we also believe “bought with a price”. Is killing our unborn children a human rights violation in the name of woman’s (human) rights? The the child is not human. What will it be.

I want to learn the epistemic and relativistic schools to defeat abortion. Prove woman have a duty to responsibilty. And…well I do not understand what “woman’s rights” are there no consistancy.

It’s a shame that the sum total of women’s rights have been boiled down to or perverted to mean the right to an abortion. Unborn women are the primary victims of abortion and also have been sold like livestock around the world. Add to that FGM and we are barely scratching the surface.

 

[QuestLove]

I think it needs to be said that one can support women’s rights and not be for abortion or even pro-choice. Reproduction is not the only factor that affects women. Many women who are childless around the world still need to fight for rights that many of us take for granted. The perspective on the rights of women may look different depending on what part of the world you live in.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

Human rights are God given and apply to all persons equally. I, as a woman, do not have special rights that apply to women only. Assigning “special” rights to murder due to someone’s own criteria is an atrocious justification of pure evil. A woman, as a human being, has intrinsic worth due to being created in God’s own image and likeness. People are mistreated around the globe for a wide variety of excuses, however all will answer for their own actions or inactions when this physical life is over.

As an aside, the so called womens rights people are all up in arms over a Super Bowl commercial by Doritos that shows a child in the womb on a sonogram. They are mad about the commercial “humanzing a foetus”. Hard to believe but true none the less.

 

[QuestLove]

It’s a shame that the sum total of women’s rights have been boiled down to or perverted to mean the right to an abortion. Unborn women are the primary victims of abortion and also have been sold like livestock around the world. Add to that FGM and we are barely scratching the surface.

Exactly. I totally agree.
One thing we do not even realise that comes under women’s rights, is the idea that in many parts of the world you are more likely to be terminated if you are female. And I am not even talking about legal abortion. I am talking even in so called religious countries which have very strict abortion laws. And as stated, even if females are born they are more likely to be “sold” because all they represent is another mouth to feed.

 

[billcu1]

Human rights are God given and apply to all persons equally. I, as a woman, do not have special rights that apply to women only. Assigning “special” rights to murder due to someone’s own criteria is an atrocious justification of pure evil. A woman, as a human being, has intrinsic worth due to being created in God’s own image and likeness. People are mistreated around the globe for a wide variety of excuses, however all will answer for their own actions or inactions when this physical life is over.

As an aside, the so called womens rights people are all up in arms over a Super Bowl commercial by Doritos that shows a child in the womb on a sonogram. They are mad about the commercial “humanzing a foetus”. Hard to believe but true none the less.

Yes I agree very much with you. What exactly are “woman’s rights” as opposed to human or men and women’s rights. It seems to be a creation to do things immoral and not have responsibility at times.

 

[billcu1]

It’s a shame that the sum total of women’s rights have been boiled down to or perverted to mean the right to an abortion. Unborn women are the primary victims of abortion and also have been sold like livestock around the world. Add to that FGM and we are barely scratching the surface.

Humm. What rights do women lack that men have? What rights should women have that men shouldn’t?

 

[billcu1]

I have to say, attitudes like that are one of the reason the pro-life lobby struggles so much. If I run around naked all day long, I’m still not going to get pregnant (pneumonia, possibly, but not pregnant). Women are not out there getting pregnant all by themselves; responsibility - and blame - has to be equally apportioned.

I’m also not discussing what is or isn’t a moral offense - I think we are all agreed that abortion is a sin, as is pre-marital sex. I’m discussing the legal arguments to address your specific question as to how to extend a “duty” from mothers to unborn children. I don’t know why the law has failed to recognize the personhood of unborn children, and honestly, I’m not sure the law can tell you why it hasn’t done so. But that failure is why we don’t recognize abortion as a crime against the child rather that condoning it as a right of the mother.

Yeah and IMO with the gay marriage ruling recently, that’s more to undermine any concept of “child rights”.

 

[billcu1]

It’s a shame that the sum total of women’s rights have been boiled down to or perverted to mean the right to an abortion. Unborn women are the primary victims of abortion and also have been sold like livestock around the world. Add to that FGM and we are barely scratching the surface.

Maybe then I am misunderstanding what is women’s rights. As defined I guess by politicians or philosophers.

 

[aclausen]

I don’t understand women’s rights and are they included in human rights? Philosophically speaking. Two thing I have seen are two philosophical schools. Moral relativism and moral universalism (not sure what that one is). And Epistemic arguments.

The basis is that a woman’s body is hers and she can do what she wishes with it. I don’t see this. A person’s body is not there own. As we also believe “bought with a price”. Is killing our unborn children a human rights violation in the name of woman’s (human) rights? The the child is not human. What will it be.

I want to learn the epistemic and relativistic schools to defeat abortion. Prove woman have a duty to responsibilty. And…well I do not understand what “woman’s rights” are there no consistancy.

Look up “personal autonomy”.

Or to put it another way, why should my choices about my body be mediated by what any particular church, or you specifically, think I should do with it?

 

[casslean]

Look up “personal autonomy”.

Or to put it another way, why should my choices about my body be mediated by what any particular church, or you specifically, think I should do with it?

It isn’t your body though. It’s another, separate life that you are choosing to end. Further it is a life for which, at any other stage of development after birth, the law recognizes that a special duty of care is owed by the parent.

In any context, the brief infringement that might be occasioned by an unborn child against its mother is not sufficient to justify the extreme act of aggression which is being taken to protect that autonomy.

The law recognizes the right to protect personal autonomy; however, it also recognizes that any response has to be reasonable and proportionate. How is it reasonable and proportionate to respond to a relatively brief infringement on personal autonomy - one which offers little or no risk to the mother’s life or health - with murder?

You’ll also note that at no point have I referred to Scripture or my church. This isn’t an argument based on Christianity; it is an argument based on logic. I suggest you read Trent Horn’s Persuasive Pro-Life if you want a full discussion of how logic argues against abortion.

 

[aclausen]

It isn’t your body though. It’s another, separate life that you are choosing to end. Further it is a life for which, at any other stage of development after birth, the law recognizes that a special duty of care is owed by the parent.

In any context, the brief infringement that might be occasioned by an unborn child against its mother is not sufficient to justify the extreme act of aggression which is being taken to protect that autonomy.

The law recognizes the right to protect personal autonomy; however, it also recognizes that any response has to be reasonable and proportionate. How is it reasonable and proportionate to respond to a relatively brief infringement on personal autonomy - one which offers little or no risk to the mother’s life or health - with murder?

You’ll also note that at no point have I referred to Scripture or my church. This isn’t an argument based on Christianity; it is an argument based on logic. I suggest you read Trent Horn’s Persuasive Pro-Life if you want a full discussion of how logic argues against abortion.

Currently, the law in many Western countries allows for abortion, so I’m assuming you are referring to a sort of idealized version of the “law”. And at any rate, I’m not arguing that personal autonomy is without limits. In most countries there are laws to deal with people suffering significant mental illnesses from harming themselves, though perhaps not by criminalizing the behavior, but rather by allowing family, doctors or other interested parties to petition a court to put the person into some sort of care.

Abortion in particular for me is a hard one. I personally don’t like it, at least late term abortion, but it’s also a fact that few if any legal systems have historically recognized any significant number of rights for a fetus. Personhood, as a legal concept, was conferred upon an individual at birth, and not at conception or at some point of time between conception and birth.

As uncomfortable as I am with, say, late term (third trimester) abortions, I’m equally uncomfortable with the state intervening in anyone’s health decisions. I don’t think for a moment that certain people wouldn’t try to impose other restrictions; say, banning contraception, tubal ligation and the like, all because, in their view, the act is immoral.

 

[casslean]

Currently, the law in many Western countries allows for abortion, so I’m assuming you are referring to a sort of idealized version of the “law”. And at any rate, I’m not arguing that personal autonomy is without limits. In most countries there are laws to deal with people suffering significant mental illnesses from harming themselves, though perhaps not by criminalizing the behavior, but rather by allowing family, doctors or other interested parties to petition a court to put the person into some sort of care.

Abortion in particular for me is a hard one. I personally don’t like it, at least late term abortion, but it’s also a fact that few if any legal systems have historically recognized any significant number of rights for a fetus. Personhood, as a legal concept, was conferred upon an individual at birth, and not at conception or at some point of time between conception and birth.

As uncomfortable as I am with, say, late term (third trimester) abortions, I’m equally uncomfortable with the state intervening in anyone’s health decisions. I don’t think for a moment that certain people wouldn’t try to impose other restrictions; say, banning contraception, tubal ligation and the like, all because, in their view, the act is immoral.

No, I’m not talking about an idealized version of the law; I’m talking about the law as it stands. The disconnect comes from the fact that abortion gives pregnant mothers rights which run contrary to nearly every other principle that the law has established regarding a parent’s duty toward their children, the reasonableness expectation where bodily integrity is at risk, and even to the legal protections guranteed to unborn children against persons other than their mother.

Further, it is useless to try to define an unborn child’s rights based on when “personhood” is defined to have begun, as personhood is defined as the point at which a being gains legal rights. It does not determine when life begins (an issue which the courts have not been willing to tackle), and it is not and should not be a definitive statement, unworthy of challenge. After all, most of the atrocities of this world have been caused by one group deciding that another group are not “persons” and thus not worthy of protection. Even on this argument, the law is a contradiction - it guarantees an unborn child no protection from a mother who wishes to kill it, but in many jurisdictions prosecutes those other than the mother who do the same.

There is a significant difference between banning sterilization, etc. that is persistently ignored in the abortion debate, and that is that abortion ends a life. The argument in favour of abortion is not simply an argument in favour of personal autonomy; it is an argument that states that a woman has a right to preserve her personal autonomy up to and including the point of killing an innocent life, which did not seek to be created and which has not acted with any aggression toward the mother. No right is unlimited, including the right to personal or bodily autonomy - those rights are balanced against how others are impacted, and in this case, the infringement on the unborn child’s right to life is so absolute that it cannot be justified.

 

[aclausen]

No, I’m not talking about an idealized version of the law; I’m talking about the law as it stands. The disconnect comes from the fact that abortion gives pregnant mothers rights which run contrary to nearly every other principle that the law has established regarding a parent’s duty toward their children, the reasonableness expectation where bodily integrity is at risk, and even to the legal protections guranteed to unborn children against persons other than their mother.

Further, it is useless to try to define an unborn child’s rights based on when “personhood” is defined to have begun, as personhood is defined as the point at which a being gains legal rights. It does not determine when life begins (an issue which the courts have not been willing to tackle), and it is not and should not be a definitive statement, unworthy of challenge. After all, most of the atrocities of this world have been caused by one group deciding that another group are not “persons” and thus not worthy of protection. Even on this argument, the law is a contradiction - it guarantees an unborn child no protection from a mother who wishes to kill it, but in many jurisdictions prosecutes those other than the mother who do the same.

There is a significant difference between banning sterilization, etc. that is persistently ignored in the abortion debate, and that is that abortion ends a life. The argument in favour of abortion is not simply an argument in favour of personal autonomy; it is an argument that states that a woman has a right to preserve her personal autonomy up to and including the point of killing an innocent life, which did not seek to be created and which has not acted with any aggression toward the mother. No right is unlimited, including the right to personal or bodily autonomy - those rights are balanced against how others are impacted, and in this case, the infringement on the unborn child’s right to life is so absolute that it cannot be justified.

And my point is that few, if any, WEstern legal systems have ever recognized personhood as beginning at any point before birth. Abortion was illegal for the majority of history, but that illegality of the act did not confer any specific legal rights upon the unborn. There is no “ying” to the abortion ban “yang”.

Pro-life advocates tend to act as if, prior to Roe v Wade and other similar rulings in other countries, there was overarching protection of the unborn, but there wasn’t. Laws, or at least laws in countries I’m familiar with, never granted personhood prior to birth.

 

[casslean]

And my point is that few, if any, WEstern legal systems have ever recognized personhood as beginning at any point before birth. Abortion was illegal for the majority of history, but that illegality of the act did not confer any specific legal rights upon the unborn. There is no “ying” to the abortion ban “yang”.

Pro-life advocates tend to act as if, prior to Roe v Wade and other similar rulings in other countries, there was overarching protection of the unborn, but there wasn’t. Laws, or at least laws in countries I’m familiar with, never granted personhood prior to birth.

I’m sorry, but this isn’t correct. By virtue of declaring it illegal to kill an unborn child, the law extended legal protection to that child. A legal protection is the same as a legal right.

I would also point out that women were not considered “persons” under the law for much of history, and yet it was still illegal to kill them.

 

[aclausen]

I’m sorry, but this isn’t correct. By virtue of declaring it illegal to kill an unborn child, the law extended legal protection to that child. A legal protection is the same as a legal right.

I would also point out that women were not considered “persons” under the law for much of history, and yet it was still illegal to kill them.

You can point me to where women were being charged with assault for smoking or drinking, or carrying out any number of activities that could harm a fetus.