Page 47 of 47 FirstFirst ... 37454647
Results 461 to 466 of 466

Thread: We Know the Cure for Poverty: The Empowerment of Women

  1. #461
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    52,133

    Re: We Know the Cure for Poverty: The Empowerment of Women

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay59 View Post
    I have answered your question. There is no violation of rights when two rights interact. That completely answers your question.

    I never claimed they be treated equally. I don't know why you keep saying that. I said that an unborn ought to have some standing at some point, specifics to be determined. I gave an example. If there is no burden on the woman, there is no infringement of her rights if the child is born rather than aborted.
    You are wrong. I asked you 'who says?' What authority? (With respect to abortion)

    If a woman is forced to remain pregnant against her will...her rights are being violated. That's a fact.

    And every pregnancy is a burden on a woman. It is a burden she has the right to accept or not. And every single pregnancy risks a woman's life...and it cant be predicted so what authority, 'who says,' she must risk her life without her consent?

    Basically your argument comes down to 'because you said so?' Please. You believe the unborn should have some standing at some point. But you cannot justify it ethically.

    Btw, no human rights organizations, national or international, recognize rights for the unborn (religious orgs excepted)...so you really dont have anything, any 'authority' behind your belief at this point. OTOH, you are welcome to your personal belief...however you have not provided any other justification for imposing it ethically or legally on women that dont believe the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    This seems less like palliative care and more like a last meal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Parrots of the Caribbean For Abortion!
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  2. #462
    Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,286

    Re: We Know the Cure for Poverty: The Empowerment of Women

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    This is interesting. Can you please clarify it? My understanding of it is that you mean impact on society. There are no negative effects of abortion on society. If there are, please list them. Otherwise, please clarify your statement.
    My wife the sociologist would disagree that there is no negative effect. At the very least, it is a vice which we tolerate.

    That is not what I meant. I meant that historically, the law's protection extended to both the woman and the unborn child. I mentioned the still existing doctrine of double homicide. Other laws involve causing miscarriage. Only for voluntary termination of the pregnancy is there an exception.

    The progress is medical. While it is not on yet the horizon, medical wombs are a research priority. The whole question becomes very different if birth is a 30 minute outpatient procedure during the second trimester.

  3. #463
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,763

    Re: We Know the Cure for Poverty: The Empowerment of Women

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay59 View Post
    In theory, science is objective. In practice it's a human endeavor.

    One does not have to treat born and unborn equally to recognize that the unborn can have rights. One does not need to apply any sort of religious ethic to consider a viable fetus as deserving of protection. There is a legitimate argument about when and how to draw legal distinctions.
    The unborn have never have rights in the United States.

    From Roe Part IX


    rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. [n63] That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [p162] courts have squarely so held. [n64] In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. [n65] Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. [n66] Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
    When it comes to matters of Reproductive health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  4. #464
    Tenacious
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    52,133

    Re: We Know the Cure for Poverty: The Empowerment of Women

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay59 View Post
    My wife the sociologist would disagree that there is no negative effect. At the very least, it is a vice which we tolerate.
    Let's see the list then. Please actually support your arguments with something.

    That is not what I meant. I meant that historically, the law's protection extended to both the woman and the unborn child. I mentioned the still existing doctrine of double homicide. Other laws involve causing miscarriage. Only for voluntary termination of the pregnancy is there an exception.
    None of those fetal homicide laws view the unborn as persons or recognize that they have rights. The charges are brought on behalf of the mother and/or the state and the unborn is treated similar to property. (Not as property, but similarly). And we have lots of laws that protect property...homes, pets, livestock, etc on behalf of their owners.

    The progress is medical. While it is not on yet the horizon, medical wombs are a research priority. The whole question becomes very different if birth is a 30 minute outpatient procedure during the second trimester.
    That's proposed quite often. And it would be a wonderful thing for couples that want children but the woman cannot carry a pregnancy to term.

    However, it does not negate most of the same issues that affect abortion:

    --would the state force a woman to submit to the procedure to remove the zygote or embryo without her consent?

    --how does the state find out a woman is pregnant if she chooses not to reveal it and go somewhere for an abortion? (Women no longer need to go to a Dr to confirm a pregnancy. She can travel to another state or country and have an abortion if necessary)

    --who will be responsible for the $$$ of maintaining the unborn until birth?

    --what happens if the unborn is not perfect and no one will adopt it? Are we just adding more to the already giant pool of kids available for adoption in the US (more than 100,000)? And who's paying for even more unwanted kids in foster care?

    Can you see the same Constitutional issues for women here? I mean I know you said you werent discussing laws but hey...we're still protected by that Const and it's not going away.
    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    This seems less like palliative care and more like a last meal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Parrots of the Caribbean For Abortion!
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  5. #465
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,763

    Re: We Know the Cure for Poverty: The Empowerment of Women

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay59 View Post
    ...

    To say one or the other's right must supercede is trivial because it's always true. If you ask what authority, all of human history is available. The concept of double homicide goes back centuries.

    To say an unborn fetus has no rights one minute and full rights the next is a fairly accurate description of current law. ...
    Feticide laws Have nothing to do with fetal rights.

    A fetus has no rights and has never had rights in the history of the Unites States. States, however have rights and they can pass laws to protect non persons.

    Not all states have feticide laws.
    When it comes to matters of Reproductive health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  6. #466
    Student Iron_Merc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    275

    Re: We Know the Cure for Poverty: The Empowerment of Women

    Lursa -

    Yeah I more or less agree with the sin part. Like I said earlier, I'm not trying to ram religion down your throat. The reason we have to involve God in this scenario is due to the fact that some type of killing is taking place. Sometimes killing is justified. Sometimes its not. In the case of abortion, killing an unborn baby is legally okay. Therefore, from a humanist perspective, that is the end of the argument. But the beginning of the debate!

    And you are absolutely right, undermining Gods will is not something to take lightly. The question then becomes, who is undermining Gods will? The pro life people? Or the pro choice people?

    I chose to embrace life and create life. Even if I was broke and living on the street, practically homeless, the mere thought of aborting my child would be unconscionable. I will always do my best to show a great respect for life and foster an environment where a child can learn and grow alongside his parents. There is no greater blessing for a mother than bringing a newborn child into this world. In no way shape or form would I ever support Planned Parenthood. What they have done is horrific to say the least. And that's putting it nicely. I could use words like dreadful, horrendous, horrifying, horrible, frightful, awful, terrible, fearful, shocking, appalling, atrocious, hideous, grim, grisly, ghastly, harrowing, gruesome, unspeakable, monstrous, nightmarish, sickening, nauseating but then again, its "compassionate" care for expectant mothers so it must be something good, right?

    Here are some questions I will link - full source below -- something to ponder...

    1) An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body. Though itís possible for someone to have a transplanted organ that does not share the same genetic code as the rest their body, that transplanted organ does match the genetic code of the original donor. The same can not be said of an unborn child.

    2) Human embryos are not independently generated by the woman. According to former United States Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop,"we should not view the unborn baby as an extension of the woman's body [because] it did not originate only from the woman. The baby would not exist without the man's seed."

    3) In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.

    4) In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.

    5) As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."

    6) It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.

    7) When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body," there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.

    9) It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother. By the latest count, 38 states have fetal homicide laws which protect the rights of unborn

    For additional questions please follow this link:
    The Case Against Abortion: Part of the Mother’s Body?

Page 47 of 47 FirstFirst ... 37454647

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •