[TESLA]

International law today is very harsh on conquest by force. Five hundred years ago it was a de facto tool of international relations.

Today we have the Four Freedoms. Five hundred years ago you'd get no justice if you were poor, sick, or exploited. You could be murdered or raped and your family enslaved and nobody would give a crap.

Today we have human rights and equality. Five hundred years ago we were still debating whether savages were human.

The trend is unavoidable and distinct: we give more freedoms as time goes on. Today's 'conservatives' hold positions that would be called wildly liberal not so long ago.

Yes, but my point still remains, that society, can only go so far ahead, without causing massive social disorder. All in its own good time, in a way.

[iamzack]

Substitute "recognized" for "granted." Problem solved.

[General Battuta]

I know I promised not to post in here any more, but I have to correct a lack of understanding.

More and more freedoms and rights have been granted to human beings as the centuries have ticked past.

Rights are not granted, they are inherent.  
What entity or organization is able to grant previously non-existent rights?

None of us have any inherent right to anything. The universe is made of physics. That's it. There is no good, no evil, certainly no human rights written into the equations that define our reality.

We, the human species, define what is right and what is wrong. We certainly define liberties. And that's all there is. If no one on Earth believed in civil liberties, they would be gone.

If you want empirical proof, travel back in time a few centuries and insult a king.

iamzack's solution works too. You can say 'discovered' if you find that more palatable.

International law today is very harsh on conquest by force. Five hundred years ago it was a de facto tool of international relations.

Today we have the Four Freedoms. Five hundred years ago you'd get no justice if you were poor, sick, or exploited. You could be murdered or raped and your family enslaved and nobody would give a crap.

Today we have human rights and equality. Five hundred years ago we were still debating whether savages were human.

The trend is unavoidable and distinct: we give more freedoms as time goes on. Today's 'conservatives' hold positions that would be called wildly liberal not so long ago.

Yes, but my point still remains, that society, can only go so far ahead, without causing massive social disorder. All in its own good time, in a way.

Sure, fine by me. Probably why the abortion debate won't be resolved in favor of the pro-choice side for decades, I'd imagine.

[Liberator]

Inherent rights are the basis of American style republicanism which in turn is the basis of modern republics the world over.

Just because king somewhere in history denied his people some of their rights doesn't mean that they didn't have them implicitly.

[General Battuta]

Look, in a vacuum consisting entirely of hydrogen atoms, there are no rights. And at some point that's all we were.

Rights exist because people define them. Stop selective reading and address all the points I make.

Now, our society has decided to define 'inherent rights' as inalienable, unalterable things that people are born with and that cannot be taken away from them. I wholeheartedly agree with and support this belief. If we ever run into aliens, I hope we will grant them the same rights.

But don't try to cheapen the gift of liberty by treating it as something that was always there. We, as a species, made it. It's one of our greatest creations. We should be proud of it and fight for it, instead of bashfully attributing it to pre-existence.

[iamzack]

Except that inherent rights just aren't real. Humans aren't special. We are profoundly different, but we got here the same way barn swallows did.

[The E]

A very american belief. Not that it is necessarily wrong, mind you, but it's a very recent phenomenon. For a very, very long time, it was the society that granted rights to the individual, not the individual that granted rights to the society. This reversal is arguably one of the greatest achievements in history. Now I have to ask you: Why do you want the society to take away rights again?

[Liberator]

I'm not advocating that society take away any rights, I'm simply speaking for those who cannot.  One of the most important things a free man can do is speak in favor of the restoration or recognition of the rights of those who cannot speak on they're own behalf.  Also, recent or not, it does not make it less correct.

[Bobboau]

do you guys really need to deconstruct the world to the point of determinism to make you point, are you that far outside of how most people think that you have to go there?
if you want to live in that sphere then there are no wants, no preferences, no happiness no sadness.

the whole point of inherent rights is that if they are inherent then they cannot be legitimately taken away.

what exactly is the fundamental basis of your ideology? what do you believe and why do you believe it?

[iamzack]

You advocate removing the right to bodily autonomy, Liberator.

[Liberator]

Your right to bodily autonomy is eclipsed by the baby's right to live.

[iamzack]

Actually, no, it's not. Unless my right to live eclipses your right not to have your blood forcibly removed from you and given to me.

[Bobboau]

Liberator, I actually want to know, what is the basis of the 'at conception' definition for the start of human life?

why isn't it ovulation or implantation into the womb, or first breath (how the bible defines it)?

I always considered birth to be the starting point.

[General Battuta]

Your right to bodily autonomy is eclipsed by the baby's right to live.

When it's a baby capable of living then maybe you'd have a point, but that doesn't happen until a good while into the pregnancy.

[Liberator]

Liberator, I actually want to know, what is the basis of the 'at conception' definition for the start of human life?

why isn't it ovulation or implantation into the womb, or first breath (how the bible defines it)?

I always considered birth to be the starting point.

At conception?  No, if it can be ended by a pill or injection within a reasonable amount of time after conception, I would be fine with that.  It's just that conception has been the defining moment for the entirety of human history up until about 45 years ago.

zack, your arguments are becoming more and more crass and mindless.  I do not know you, nor would I claim to know how you have been raised.  But, and I'm basing this on your reasonings in favor of the premature termination of a pregnancy, you strike me as a spoiled, bratty, narcissistic child with little concern for anything other than her continued freedom to live a life seemingly free of consequence or responsibility who has no idea of her or anyone else's place in the world.

[iamzack]

That's... really funny. XD

[General Battuta]

Liberator, I actually want to know, what is the basis of the 'at conception' definition for the start of human life?

why isn't it ovulation or implantation into the womb, or first breath (how the bible defines it)?

I always considered birth to be the starting point.

At conception?  No, if it can be ended by a pill or injection within a reasonable amount of time after conception, I would be fine with that.  It's just that conception has been the defining moment for the entirety of human history up until about 45 years ago.

No, historically it often came at the point where the baby began to move - or, as in the Bible, at the moment of birth. And as MP-Ryan pointed out earlier in this thread, most abortions occur at a very much earlier stage than that.

zack, your arguments are becoming more and more crass and mindless.  I do not know you, nor would I claim to know how you have been raised.  But, and I'm basing this on your reasonings in favor of the premature termination of a pregnancy, you strike me as a spoiled, bratty, narcissistic child with little concern for anything other than her continued freedom to live a life seemingly free of consequence or responsibility who has no idea of her or anyone else's place in the world.

iamzack has more experience with responsibility, hardship, and consequences than you have ever had. I'm not sure of how to take 'no idea of her place in the world', but it seems ironic coming from a man who has never had a relationship and apparently lacks the social ability to cure crippling loneliness. You are in no position to talk about anyone's place in the world when you have yet to find yours, and when you lack the deftness and confidence to respond to challenges to your beliefs with anything but blind denial and rage.

If you're going to go ad hominem prepare to reap the consequences. Since you can't handle iamzack intellectually you apparently feel the need to tear her down on a personal level.

[iamzack]

Just as a small point so that this doesn't go back to feminism, I don't think Liberator meant "your place in the world" to be directed at my sex. I assumed it was something much more general than that. He's not High Max.

[MP-Ryan]

You really need to learn about the affect of another active organism working within the human body.
The fetal growth may actually help improve our knowledge of a whole range of health problems:

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/12/04/moms-cells-prime-fetal-immune-system.html

It has been proven, that the development of a fetus can strongly benefit a mother to be, as it can strengthen her against certain, bacterial, and fungal infections, (although the evidence about a virus is still up for debate)

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/09/20/30130.aspx

But you are correct in a sense: pregnancy usually suppresses a woman's immune system, otherwise the fetus might be rejected by her body as a 'foreign body'. This can make a pregnant woman more prone to infection which has implications for her own health as well as for her developing baby.
I do know this, as i am coming from a background of where people close to me, are involved in the field of medicine.

But the point simply remains, the field of medicine views pregnancy as a 'Symbiosis' not as a 'parasite'

The field of medicine does no such thing.  Let's clear things up for a second here:  I am married to an RN who has a B.Sc in Nursing and works exclusively with pregnant women, delivers babies, and does postpartum care.  I myself have a B.Sc in Molecular Genetics with emphasis on Immunology and Infection, and significant course material in the area of early development and the immunology of pregnancy.  I have a second B.A. in Sociology and Psychology.

Now then, while some forms of T-cell regulated immunity increase during pregnancy to increase resistance to microbial and viral infection by up-regulating B-cell production and increasing the overall response time of immune cells like macrophages, natural killer cell and T-cell response to organism-mediated infection drops off dramatically during pregnancy (as you've mentioned).  The result is a marginal increase in efficacy of response to bacterial infection, and a sharp decline in the efficacy against parasitic infection.  This is why pregnant women are much more susceptible to infection by parasitic worms and extracellular disease.

On top of that, pregnant women also faces problems of immune rejection of the fetus and pregnancy dramatically increases the risk of autoimmune diseases due to the up-regulated activity of B cells.

Beyond that, fetal development alters physiological structure and places tremendous demand on the digestive and cardiovascular systems of the body.

To be a symbiont, a fetus has to provide some benefit to the mother.  There is no biological benefit to pregnancy (aside from the benefit to the new organism).  It makes a woman weaker and more susceptible to illness and injury in virtually every way possible.  The slight increase in the effectiveness of the immune response to bacterial infection is so negligible it can hardly be considered a benefit.

[Ace]

A fetus isn't viable until it's an employee and paying health insurance. This is AMERICA afterall.