It's hard for anyone on this thread to take seriously, anything you say, after the last post (and the slew of others just like it) now: isn't it?
That aside. You can't have it both ways. If Countries can adopt certain rights, then they can un-adopt them just as readily.
"It is rational to decide that a fetus has only the rights granted it by the mother--as to grant it rights independent of the mother would abrogate the Universal Rights clause for humanity."
First of all: No it's not: "rational to decide that a fetus has only the rights granted it by the mother". Universal rights are not "granted" thank you very much. Even so: granting another human being, rights, in no way "abrogate(s) the Universal Rights clause for humanity". In fact it's the other way around. If your rights supersede mine just because I may happen to be dependant on you, then these "rights" are not universal at all. There is always a tension between your rights and mine. As soon as you decide to exercise your rights in a way that effects another human being, then your rights become mitigated and limited. For example: if you want to burn down your own barn and you have a permit from the authorities to do that, then it is your right to do that. If however you are aware that certain naredowells have occupied your barn, and you proceed to exercise your "right" to burn down that barn anyway, (even though they don't have permission to be in your barn) then you sir, will have committed an act of murder and will be found guilty of depriving those poor souls of their legitimate right to life. It's exactly the same thing with abortion. Once you know that there is another human being involved, then your rights are mitigated by that fact. It has nothing to do with force: it has everything to do with basic Human Decency. |
