We Know the Cure for Poverty: The Empowerment of Women

Jay59 said:

In theory, science is objective. In practice it's a human endeavor.

Click to expand...

That seems very trite and really doesnt mean anything to me. Feel free to explain.

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.

Click to expand...

How can they have rights? I mean perhaps they can, but what is the justification for recognizing that when a) they dont have a single right they are capable of exercising independently and b) it would require the violation of many of women's Constitutional rights, up to and including our lives.

Every single pregnancy risks a woman's life and this cannot always be predicted or prevented. How do you justify the govt forcing women to take that significant risk?

What is the legal justification for violating the rights protecting our bodily sovereignty, self-determination, due process, and privacy, in order to give the exact same things to the unborn instead? How are the unborn more deserving?

Lursa said:

That seems very trite and really doesnt mean anything to me. Feel free to explain.

How can they have rights? I mean perhaps they can, but what is the justification for recognizing that when a) they dont have a single right they are capable of exercising independently and b) it would require the violation of many of women's Constitutional rights, up to and including our lives. Every single pregnancy risks a woman's life and this cannot always be predicted or prevented. How do you justify the govt forcing women to take that significant risk? What is the legal justification for violating the rights protecting our bodily sovereignty, self-determination, due process, and privacy, in order to give the exact same things to the unborn instead? How are the unborn more deserving?

Click to expand...

On the first point, science is fallible because humans are fallible. If that's not enough, let it go.

Rights only extend until they touch another person. At that point some form of weighing rights vs harms comes into play. With few exceptions, a child has full rights from the point of birth. It would be consistent to say that some rights vested at some point pre-birth. The question then becomes which rights and which harms are weightier.

Jay59 said:

On the first point, science is fallible because humans are fallible. If that's not enough, let it go.

Rights only extend until they touch another person. At that point some form of weighing rights vs harms comes into play. With few exceptions, a child has full rights from the point of birth. It would be consistent to say that some rights vested at some point pre-birth. The question then becomes which rights and which harms are weightier.

Click to expand...

Oh there is no question of the categorization of the stages of human development. Or when life begins (at fertilization).

And can you please source your 2nd para? Because I posted US law that says otherwise. I also asked you an ethical question: what justifies taking bodily sovereignty, self-determination, and our other rights from women and giving those exact same things to the unborn? Why are the unborn more deserving of those than women?

It is not possible to treat them equally under the law...one or the other's rights will supersede the others.

Lursa said:

Oh there is no question of the categorization of the stages of human development. Or when life begins (at fertilization).

And can you please source your 2nd para? Because I posted US law that says otherwise. I also asked you an ethical question: what justifies taking bodily sovereignty, self-determination, and our other rights from women and giving those exact same things to the unborn? Why are the unborn more deserving of those than women?

It is not possible to treat them equally under the law...one or the other's rights will supersede the others.

Click to expand...

You are just not reading what is written.

You also changed your statement from not equal to not equal under the law. Why the change and what distinction? If you are saying that it is not possible for an unborn to have standing under the law, you need to defend that statement because it is strongly counter-intuitive. If you are saying it is not the current state of the law, why bother? We are discussing the ethics underlying the law. I see no reason that the unborn lack all standing until birth. It's too arbitrary.

Jay59 said:

You are just not reading what is written.

You also changed your statement from not equal to not equal under the law. Why the change and what distinction? If you are saying that it is not possible for an unborn to have standing under the law, you need to defend that statement because it is strongly counter-intuitive. If you are saying it is not the current state of the law, why bother? We are discussing the ethics underlying the law. I see no reason that the unborn lack all standing until birth. It's too arbitrary.

Click to expand...

OK sure. So then "who says" the unborn are equal? What authority?

Does your view of ethics only apply to the unborn because I have clearly asked you ethical questions and you have not answered:


Those questions stand without reference to specific law...but no actual enforcement of rights for either can be done without laws...so keep that in mind. And that brings us back to ethics as well.

Please feel free to answer my questions from an ethical perspective.

Lursa said:

OK sure. So then "who says" the unborn are equal? What authority? Does your view of ethics only apply to the unborn because I have clearly asked you ethical questions and you have not answered:

...what justifies taking bodily sovereignty, self-determination, and our other rights from women and giving those exact same things to the unborn? Why are the unborn more deserving of those than women?

It is not possible to treat them equally under the law...one or the other's rights will supersede the others.​

Those questions stand without reference to specific law...but no actual enforcement of rights for either can be done without laws...so keep that in mind. And that brings us back to ethics as well. Please feel free to answer my questions from an ethical perspective.

Click to expand...

I fully answered your question. Read again.

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. The point that you have raised is whether the current law fits well ethically. I think it does not, because it is historically extreme and contrary to the the direction of progress.

I pose you one. Suppose the fetus is medically viable and the woman wants to end the pregnancy. Take abortion and birth as equal medical procedures for the woman. Why should she have the right to dictate which procedure, since both will end both the pregnancy and the legal obligations? In the ninth month this is a valid question now. What if it becomes a valid question in the fifth month?

Jay59 said:

I fully answered your question. Read again.

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. The point that you have raised is whether the current law fits well ethically. I think it does not because it is historically extreme and contrary to the the direction of progress.

I pose you one. Suppose the fetus is medically viable and the woman wants to end the pregnancy. Take abortion and birth as equal medical procedures for the woman. Why should she have the right to dictate which procedure, since both will end both the pregnancy and the legal obligations? In the ninth month this is a valid question now. What if it becomes a valid question in the fifth month?

Click to expand...

Nope...I asked you 'who says?' What authority? I am not answering your questions until you answer mine. You keep avoiding them.

And you only ask me similar questions back. I asked YOU to justify the violations of rights for one or the other and what make that one more deserving. Please do.

You wanted a discussion based on ethics. Did you really expect the answers to be easy? To get off without committing?

Here, I'll commit: I value the unborn but I value all born people more. Can you do the same? (And if you claim they can be treated equally, you need to explain how.)

Jay59 said:

I think it does not, because it is historically extreme and contrary to the the direction of progress.

Click to expand...

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.

Iron_Merc said:

Okay but you must understand the point of contention. Christians think abortion is a moral issue. ....

Click to expand...

False. There are over 20 million Million Americans who are pro choice.

Many of them belong to the Christian Churches.

From:

A Matter of Faith, Conscience and Justice


There are as many viewpoints and beliefs about issues having to do with our reproductive lives as there are denominations, clergy, and faith leaders. One thing you should know is that there is broad consensus that the moral agency of human beings – especially that of a woman when making decisions about her reproductive life – is God-given. One narrow, religious viewpoint is not representative of what most Americans believe.

We believe that decisions about our reproductive lives (such as whether or not to terminate a pregnancy) should be left to the person, in consultation with their loved ones, trusted medical professionals, and their faith.

Faith traditions such as the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Unitarian Universalist Association, and Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative Judaism support reproductive choice as the most responsible position a religious institution can take on this issue.

In fact, all have official statements in support of reproductive choice as a matter of conscience, adopted by their governing bodies. Together, these religions represent over 20 million Americans.

Religious and religiously-affiliated organizations from these and other traditions, as well as independent religious organizations such as Catholics for Choice, are also doing incredible work to combat the notion that all religious people or institutions are always anti-abortion.

Click to expand...

Faith Perspectives – Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

PRO-FAITH. PRO-FAMILY. PRO-CHOICE.



The mission of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is to be the leading religious voice for reproductive justice in the country.

When seeing someone who is clearly religious – whether they’re wearing indicators of their faith such as a clerical collar, a crucifix, a kippah, or even a t-shirt with a religious message on it – you might assume that person does not believe a woman should have access to compassionate abortion care, or comprehensive sexuality education, or even contraception.

RCRC is proof that you would likely be mistaken.

For over 40 years, RCRC has been a voice for reproductive choice, and has been active in working with women and men – especially those at the margins – at the intersection of faith, policy and our reproductive lives. Supportive clergy have been giving sermons about the moral agency of women to make decisions about their lives for decades, as well as praying quietly with women when actually making those decisions. We have stood arm-in-arm with proponents of comprehensive sexuality education, worked for a version of the Affordable Care Act that included contraception with no co-pays, and were instrumental in bringing faithful voices of those at the pulpit, in pews and in communities across the country to issues such as the Violence Against Women Act, the approval of Plan B pills and telemedicine for abortions, and for the ability of servicewomen to access abortion care while serving our country. We believe in faith expressed in action.

Click to expand...

RCRC

Lursa said:

Nope...I asked you 'who says?' What authority? I am not answering your questions until you answer mine. You keep avoiding them. And you only ask me similar questions back. I asked YOU to justify the violations of rights for one or the other and what make that one more deserving. Please do. You wanted a discussion based on ethics. Did you really expect the answers to be easy? To get off without committing? Here, I'll commit: I value the unborn but I value all born people more. Can you do the same? (And if you claim they can be treated equally, you need to explain how.)

Click to expand...

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.

Jay59 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Lursa said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Jay59 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Jay59 said:

My wife the sociologist would disagree that there is no negative effect. At the very least, it is a vice which we tolerate.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Jay59 said:

...

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. ...

Click to expand...

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.

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 it’s 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?

Iron_Merc said:

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. ...

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.

...
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?

Click to expand...

(Text shortened to save bandwidth.)


Number 9 of your link has nothing to with fetal rights. Feticide laws are states rights and has nothing to do fetal rights since in the United States a fetus has no rights and has never had any rights.

A woman’s right to bodily autonomy has nothing to with fact a fetus is not a part of the woman’s body.

A fetus is inside and attached to woman’s body. It is infringing on her bodily autonomy unless the woman chooses to let it stay and wishes to continue her pregnancy.

Lursa said:

Let's see the list then. Please actually support your arguments with something.

Click to expand...

I did.

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.
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.

Click to expand...

It vastly changes the issue of abortion.

However, it does not negate most of the same issues that affect abortion:
1)--would the state force a woman to submit to the procedure to remove the zygote or embryo without her consent?
2)--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)
3)--who will be responsible for the $$$ of maintaining the unborn until birth?
4)--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?

Click to expand...

1) Consent is not a problem. The woman just requested it. The question is whether to abort or remove the embryo to a womb.
2) Again, not a problem. The woman came forward.
3) The woman has no responsibilities. Also, no or few rights. Possibly some medically related.
4) Again, consent to sever relations is a given.

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.

Click to expand...

Honestly, no. You made a huge deal of making pregnancy life threatening, which was taken out of the equation. Rights of the other genetic donor have room to be addressed.

Jay59 said:

I did.

Click to expand...

Where did you list any negative effects of abortion on society? Please post the quote.

And apparently you had nothing to add regarding what I posted for artificial wombs and fetal homicide, so I hope you are now a little more informed about those things. Which is fine...civil debates are supposed to inform.

Lursa said:

Where did you list any negative effects of abortion on society? Please post the quote.

And apparently you had nothing to add regarding what I posted for artificial wombs and fetal homicide, so I hope you are now a little more informed about those things. Which is fine...civil debates are supposed to inform.

Click to expand...

At the very least, it is a vice which we tolerate.

You did not provide any information I could see on multiple readings.

WCH said:

According to you gals on this forum, it's a miracle pregnancy doesn't kill you all.

Click to expand...

Show where anyone here has said that.

Jay59 said:

It vastly changes the issue of abortion.

Click to expand...

How? Those are current laws, in place for many years. Please explain how. They havent affected abortion at all.

1) Consent is not a problem. The woman just requested it. The question is whether to abort or remove the embryo to a womb.
2) Again, not a problem. The woman came forward.
3) The woman has no responsibilities. Also, no or few rights. Possibly some medically related.
4) Again, consent to sever relations is a given

Click to expand...

Well that's fine then. But it then has nothing to do with abortion...it's just a different medical means to voluntarily produce a child. So I'm not sure why you posted it.

Honestly, no. You made a huge deal of making pregnancy life threatening, which was taken out of the equation. Rights of the other genetic donor have room to be addressed.

Click to expand...

It's a valid, significant concern for every pregnant woman. But if a woman wants to contribute her unborn to that system, cool. Of course you didnt explain anything about the added costs for...someone, probably the taxpayers...with the artificial womb. Maintenance of the womb during gestation and then of the baby/child if not adopted immediately, would entail major costs, so again, nothing positive there.

Jay59 said:

At the very least, it is a vice which we tolerate.

You did not provide any information I could see on multiple readings.

Click to expand...

Please explain how it is a 'vice?' It is a medical procedure that is 14 times safer for a woman who is not prepared or want to be a mother.

Abortion safer than giving birth: study - Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.

Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.

Click to expand...

So please explain how it is a vice and how it impacts society negatively?


And I believe your last statement is re: my comments/information that you didnt address the other quotes in my post but you ended up adding them to your post later, so then it is moot.

WCH said:

By letting women be god-less murdering whores?

Click to expand...

There is no god, abortion isn’t murder and women aren’t whores. But it’s nice to see the stark difference between you and me. Good day.

calamity said:

There is no god, abortion isn’t murder and women aren’t whores. But it’s nice to see the stark difference between you and me. Good day.

Click to expand...

Oh there is a god whether you believe in him or not, hate to break it to you.