Implications of 'Abortion is Murder'

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

tstorm823:

Frission:

That line is however just as arbitrary. Why not condemn someone for wasting spermatozoids? What line of distinguishes that?

I'm just saying.

You're just saying silly things. A spermatoid isn't an organism.

Am I? It has the potential of becoming a human being. Same as a fetus.

It's just for argument sakes. What we think about abortion is reliant entirely on our own ethics, opinions and priorities.

That's why I'm against "would the pragmatic thing to do not be choose the line we know isn't allowing people to kill babies?", because the line for "babies" is completely subjective.

For example, I could say that the pragmatic thing to do is allow the women to choose, since we would be preserving the rights of a thinking and living being, whereas the rights for a fetus are far more nebulous.

Frission:

Am I? It has the potential of becoming a human being. Same as a fetus.

Only fools make that arguement, though. I do not seek to protect a fetus because of it's potential, but because of what it already is. It is a living, human organism that is genetically unique and distinct.

That's why I'm against "would the pragmatic thing to do not be choose the line we know isn't allowing people to kill babies?", because the line for "babies" is completely subjective.

To be honest, I only used the word "babies" to be emotionally manipulative. There isn't exactly an easy word or phrase for "human organism mature enough to be afforded individual rights" so I chose the rhetoric most beneficial to my arguement.

For example, I could say that the pragmatic thing to do is allow the women to choose, since we would be preserving the rights of a thinking and living being, whereas the rights for a fetus are far more nebulous.

First of all, "preserving rights" is sort of a pointless goal. Anything can be described in terms of "rights" and most would not be worth preserving. Preserving someone's right to watch daytime television is not exactly a noble goal. I think you would agree that the seriousness of the right being preserved is an important factor, and there is definitely an arguement to be made that a nebulous right to life is more serious than a very definite right to many lesser things.

And I don't think ignorance is a good excuse. If I gave you a gun and a big wooden box with a target, told you that there is something alive inside the box that may or may not be a person, and that you could either shoot the target or undergo months or years of pain and hardship yourself, would shooting the box be morally justified? Actions that might kill someone are generally frowned upon and very often illegal, whether that danger is uncertain or not.

tstorm823:

/snip

I've already gotten into that argument in another thread.

Frankly I think that it's worth it, no matter how you present it. I don't particularly care about the person hood of the fetus. I don't think it's a person until birth. Does that make me complicit to murder? If you want to think so, then you're welcome.

We're doing what we think is best. I find it monstrous to force a women to go through the pain for reasons which I don't find really important. I don't believe in souls and as such, I prioritize the rights of the women to be far more important. Most good developed countries allows women the choice of abortion.

Frission:

I've already gotten into that argument in another thread.

I'm curious what specifically you're referring to since you snipped everything and some of it was tstorm original.

tstorm823:

Frission:

I've already gotten into that argument in another thread.

I'm curious what specifically you're referring to since you snipped everything and some of it was tstorm original.

Sorry about that.

I'm referring to the difference in priorities between us. Your last question in particular, where you mention the box. The other guy used another metaphor. Something about a rabbit and hunter. Both me perplexed because I don't really see it that way and I don't know how it applies.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.398343-Personal-thoughts-on-abortion-and-parenthood?page=4

I mean, at the end of the day we both think different things about the role of the fetus. The whole point of this topic were the implications that "abortion is murder". Some people would decry it as murder. Others say it isn't, because personhood is subjective and arbitrary. You say that means we should not use abortions. I think that it would mean the reverse.

I also don't see any pros for illegalizing abortion, other than "preserving the life of a baby", which can include a fetus in a variety of stages. There's no good tangible reason for illegalizing abortion. I find leaving people no choice but to have a kid, to be stupid. It will certainly cause several problematic scenarios down the line. Brushing off the pregnancy like it's nothing seems to me to be extremely insensitive.

There's also the fact that some people might go for abortions regardless. Legalizing it might make it far less dangerous, than in a back alley clinic. The process of aborting a fetus is painful enough. No need to rub salt in the wounds. That's one thing that has to be understood. You don't have to like abortion, but for basic human rights, the option should be open.

I willalso answer the others points.

1)I do not seek to protect a fetus because of it's potential, but because of what it already is. It is a living, human organism that is genetically unique and distinct.

Fair enough. I guess that's why some couples would object to abortion and instead carry it to term. I always think that it's up to the parents to decide.

2)To be honest, I only used the word "babies" to be emotionally manipulative. There isn't exactly an easy word or phrase for "human organism mature enough to be afforded individual rights" so I chose the rhetoric most beneficial to my arguement.

That's sort of why I objected to it in the first place. I only get into a discussion when I don't approve of what's being posted. That's why I gravitate to the well of pain known as R&P. Wouldn't the term "human being" work better? I find that it properly sends the message without it feeling as if you're accusing people.

3)First of all, "preserving rights" is sort of a pointless goal. Anything can be described in terms of "rights" and most would not be worth preserving. Preserving someone's right to watch daytime television is not exactly a noble goal. I think you would agree that the seriousness of the right being preserved is an important factor, and there is definitely an arguement to be made that a nebulous right to life is more serious than a very definite right to many lesser things.

I would sort of disagree here, but it all comes down to priorities. Although I would suggest against comparing the right to control your own body as the right to watch the TV. It's a pretty important right.

It is frightening to read some of those cases where, in a very real way, the "rights" on fetus completely trump the rights of the mother to the extent that, in some of the cases, the mother was forced to die. To my mind that is wrong, much more wrong than killing a parasite that could not exist independently were it not leaching off the nutrients of it's host (you know, a fetus).

Also imagine how much better the world might be if some of the serial killers, mass-murders and cruel dictators had been aborted instead.*

It has often been said that if men were the ones who got pregnant abortion wouldn't just be legal; it would be a religious sacrament.

*I am being a bit facetious with that comment. But it's a spin of the "imagine if (famous person) was aborted!"

Danny Ocean:

manic_depressive13:

So I avoid it.

It was one of the first things we did on one of my philosophy/socsci courses. The argument is very persuasive.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/singer.pdf

Seems like the problem arises by using a woolly form of 'justice' as the basis for the argument rather than the overall interest in efficient cooperation. Keeping potential members of society and their immediate friends and family oppressed or in servitude limits their usefulness to others, as does denying them equal opportunities in the workplace or in marriage or whatever else. Because we operate in a society with a division of labor, and we divide that labor with a voluntary market system, we do best by allowing and encouraging everyone to pursue the form of contribution they want to make rather than letting it be dictated by slavemasters, husbands, parents, social mores, and so on.

Where justice comes in is that a feeling of just treatment is instrumental in achieving this efficient cooperation: a notion of justice is an extremely useful ideological bulwark against behavior harmful to the society as a whole (shirking duties, sabotage, striking and so on)-- people feel that they hold a stake in the success of the larger group and that they could not find a better deal elsewhere or by rebellion. Thus the more egalitarian society becomes the more successful society because it attracts productive people and allows the division of labor to resolve itself by efficient price mechanisms rather than by dictate. When there is no member of the group to be liberated who can even articulate a concern with the system that they are a part of, then I see no reason to pursue an agenda of liberation. That doesn't mean we should treat anything worse than we currently do, but it does mean that we should not concern ourselves overmuch with the equal consideration of other species-- unless we can communicate with them in a productive way (which currently we can't.) I'll happily continue putting my own interests, and the interests of other humans, above those of my dinner.

tstorm823:
Only fools make that arguement, though. I do not seek to protect a fetus because of it's potential, but because of what it already is. It is a living, human organism that is genetically unique and distinct.

That's not true. A fetus is not a person. You are motivated by 'what it might become' and that makes Frission's comparison accurate. If you're consistent in your point, wanking should be mass murder.

The point of which is of course to illustrate that all 'pro-life' arguments are a pile or rubbish.

tstorm823:
I think you would agree that the seriousness of the right being preserved is an important factor, and there is definitely an arguement to be made that a nebulous right to life is more serious than a very definite right to many lesser things.

That doesn't fly, not at all. What you said there, is that a religious doctrine (protecting clumps of cells because procreation is mandatory) is more important than the most elementary, the most basic of all forms of freedom, namely the integrity of the own body.

I don't think many will agree with you that religious dogma is more important than people being stripped of all their freedom. Well, outside of religious lunatics of course, but since when have those ever said anything sensible?

manic_depressive13:
Firstly, I'm sorry to start another abortion related thread but I once made a post about this and it didn't generate the discussion I was hoping for since people were already caught up in their own vitriolic arguments.

What I want to ask is that if we accept that life starts at conception and that a foetus is a seperate human being which, while dependent on the mother, is still deserving of human rights, wouldn't this have all sorts of implications? If abortion is murder, as many pro-lifers argue, could having a miscarriage be considered manslaughter? Suppose a woman has a miscarriage or a still birth, and blood tests reveal that she drank alcohol or smoked during her pregnancy. Could such negligence in her role as an incubator result in criminal persecution?

That makes sense, if you intentionally put your child's life in harms way knowing that your not supposed to consume alcohol or illegal narcotics, I think you should be charged with a crime. Hell even if we don't agree that "life starts at conception" I think intentionally consuming alcohol or illegal narcotics and as a result having a miscarriage should be a criminal offense. Granted, I'm not saying that a women who watches what she eats and still has a miscarriage should be punished.

manic_depressive13:

To carry that further, if a woman starved her infant child she would go to jail. But what if an ill-informed young woman sees her baby bump and, not realising she is pregnant, goes on a diet, resulting in serious complications for her child. Should she too be held criminally liable?

I'd seriously question if a person is capable of being so ignorant about their own body, but for the sake of this conversation lets go with it. I'd say if its during the first trimester, then she shouldn't be held accountable because she didn't knowingly try to harm the child. However, after the first trimester, I really really question just how ignorant she is about her own body. I would say that at this point, it should be taken at a case by case bases on whether or not she should be punished.

manic_depressive13:

To me this is simply the implication of the pro-life argument, but it never seems to get discussed. Is this just a slippery-slope argument? Or is it the next logical step once you accept the premise that a foetus is a human being.

I think its the next logical step, good thinking on your part.

Helmholtz Watson:
-

As I've already mentioned to another poster, sometimes blood/urine tests can give false readings if someone has been exposed to certain conditions. Also, some posters have been kind enough to provide links of this sort of thing already happening, and I think it is clear that the cases are unfair and needless punitive. A pregnant woman is more than a vessel for her child. One of the links (rightly, in my opinion) suggests that a woman who has a drug or alcohol problem will be less likely to seek help because she will fear being treated like some scummy child-abuser and possibly punished.

I also don't think it's necessarily ignorant to assume a baby bump is just you getting fatter. Say a woman is on the pill. This can cause a woman's period to stop completely. So not only does she not have her period stopping as an indicator she may be pregnant, she also isn't expecting to become pregnant. If it is during a festive season with a lot of celebratory dinners I don't think it's absurd for someone to assume they put on some weight instead of immediately realise they're pregnant. Even after 16 weeks of pregnancy it isn't obvious a woman is pregnant. They just bulge out a bit. The second trimester begins at 13 weeks.

Finally, you say you are pro-abortion. You think it should be legal to deliberately kill your foetus, but illegal to do so accidentally? Isn't that a bit... absurd?

manic_depressive13:

Helmholtz Watson:
-

As I've already mentioned to another poster, sometimes blood/urine tests can give false readings if someone has been exposed to certain conditions.

Hold on, I'm not in favor of using faulty ways of determining if the women consumed alcohol or not. Obviously I want her to have a fair trail/examination to determine if she consumed anything I mentioned.

manic_depressive13:
Also, some posters have been kind enough to provide links of this sort of thing already happening, and I think it is clear that the cases are unfair and needless punitive.

That what already happens?

As for being "unfair and needless[ly] punitive", if we are talking about charging a women who miscarriaged because she drank or consumed narcotics while knowing she was pregnant, I completely disagree but I'll elaborate on that in a second.

manic_depressive13:
A pregnant woman is more than a vessel for her child. One of the links (rightly, in my opinion) suggests that a woman who has a drug or alcohol problem will be less likely to seek help because she will fear being treated like some scummy child-abuser and possibly punished.

So? If you intentionally consumed alcohol or narcotics knowing you were pregnant, and a miscarriage is the result, you should be punished because you are a child abuser. You knowingly put your child[1] in harms way. The fact that some women might feel bad about this and want to avoid punishment is not a justification for why it shouldn't be a criminal act. I mean if "but they will feel bad and worry about being punished!" was a justification not making something legal, then why is dog fighting illegal? I mean you could argue that some owners might not take their dog to a veterinarian after a dog fight "because [they] will fear being treated like some scummy [animal]-abuser and possibly punished".

As for what a pregnant women is, I'm not saying she is not a human being. I'm saying that she is responsible for not just her own life, and as such, she is accountable for the life that she cares for. The same goes for anybody else that is a parent or legal guardian of a baby[2].

manic_depressive13:

I also don't think it's necessarily ignorant to assume a baby bump is just you getting fatter. Say a woman is on the pill. This can cause a woman's period to stop completely. So not only does she not have her period stopping as an indicator she may be pregnant, she also isn't expecting to become pregnant. If it is during a festive season with a lot of celebratory dinners I don't think it's absurd for someone to assume they put on some weight instead of immediately realise they're pregnant. Even after 16 weeks of pregnancy it isn't obvious a woman is pregnant. They just bulge out a bit. The second trimester begins at 13 weeks.

Finally, you say you are pro-abortion. You think it should be legal to deliberately kill your foetus, but illegal to do so accidentally? Isn't that a bit... absurd?

I'll repeat what I said earlier....

Helmholtz Watson:
However, after the first trimester, I really really question just how ignorant she is about her own body. I would say that at this point, it should be taken at a case by case bases on whether or not she should be punished.

I said "case by case" for this very reason, because I realize that not all women are the same and for some women they never really get that big. I'm not trying to wrongfully punish pregnant women.

[1] I use this word because the OP presented the premise that we accept that "life begins at conception"
[2] Again, I use this word because the OP presented the premise that we accept that "life begins at conception"

Helmholtz Watson:
-

I'm sorry but that's just naive. You're saying "of course I only want people to be punished if they deserve to be punished". Well that's just nonsense and isn't how the world works. When advocating certain laws you need to understand the repercussions of those laws. For example, I'm sure the 'war on drugs' didn't mean to target minority groups, but frankly if you belong to a low socio-economic backround you are more likely do be driven to drugs, and also more likely to be black. The law itself isn't racist but due to the way society is organised, as a result of past and ongoing injustice, it had racist results.

If you accept that women should be legally prosecuted for having a miscarriage you are encouraging this notion that a woman should be seen as an incubator first and a human being second.

Furthermore, drug abuse is a sign of mental illness. It is addictive and most people want to stop but feel like they can't. That's different to wantonly torturing animals because it's profitable to you. I find it kind of disgusting that you would reduce someone who has a serious problem and accidentally falls pregnant to someone who deliberately tortures animals.

And you didn't answer my main and final question, why do you think deliberate child murder is fine but accidental child murder should be punished?

manic_depressive13:

I'm sorry but that's just naive. You're saying "of course I only want people to be punished if they deserve to be punished". Well that's just nonsense and isn't how the world works. When advocating certain laws you need to understand the repercussions of those laws. For example, I'm sure the 'war on drugs' didn't mean to target minority groups, but frankly if you belong to a low socio-economic backround you are more likely do be driven to drugs, and also more likely to be black. The law itself isn't racist but due to the way society is organised, as a result of past and ongoing injustice, it had racist results.

So because the "war on drugs" unintentionally targets people from certain "socio-economic background[s]", should it stop? No it shouldn't. Same goes here.

manic_depressive13:

If you accept that women should be legally prosecuted for having a miscarriage you are encouraging this notion that a woman should be seen as an incubator first and a human being second.

Did you read what I typed before you strawmaned what I said? Go back an look at what I said, actually let me just quote myself....

Helmholtz Watson:

That makes sense, if you intentionally put your child's life in harms way knowing that your not supposed to consume alcohol or illegal narcotics, I think you should be charged with a crime. Hell even if we don't agree that "life starts at conception" I think intentionally consuming alcohol or illegal narcotics and as a result having a miscarriage should be a criminal offense. Granted, I'm not saying that a women who watches what she eats and still has a miscarriage should be punished.

[...]

As for what a pregnant women is, I'm not saying she is not a human being. I'm saying that she is responsible for not just her own life, and as such, she is accountable for the life that she cares for.

I made a distinguished between women who live a healthy life and unfortunately have a miscarriage and women who know they are pregnant and put the fetus in danger by drinking and consuming narcotics.
Also, I specifically said that I recognized that pregnant women were human beings, you not even trying to hide the fact that you over looked what I typed.

manic_depressive13:

Furthermore, drug abuse is a sign of mental illness. It is addictive and most people want to stop but feel like they can't. That's different to wantonly torturing animals because it's profitable to you. I find it kind of disgusting that you would reduce someone who has a serious problem and accidentally falls pregnant to someone who deliberately tortures animals.

And I find it disgusting that you would suggest that a law on women who intentionally put their child in harms way, shouldn't be created to punished them because they might "feel bad". Also, mental illness doesn't mean you get off scott free, you still get a form a of punishment and if you're a drug addict and kill a child/children[1], you need to be punished/treated for your horrific actions.

manic_depressive13:

And you didn't answer my main and final question, why do you think deliberate child murder is fine but accidental child murder should be punished?

Apologies, allow me to answer it now.
I don't think deliberate child murder is fine. Look back at the quote of myself I just cited in this response, I'm not advocating for women who did everything right and still have a miscarriage to be punished.

[1] Going off the premise of what the OP said about "life at conception"

Batou667:

Revnak:
Bullshit. It's about drawing a fucking line in the sand. It is always arbitrary to a certain extent. Their logic is that it is a genetically independent life form (though not in such words). The same can not be said of your sperm. Strawmanning the fuck out of your opposition is useless. Stahp.

Hehe. That was exactly my point: an arbitrary line in the sand. Conception is arbitrary, 12 weeks is arbitrary, 9 months is arbitrary.

No, no its not. There is nothing arbitrary about it, at that point in time a baby is full formed. Its not longer just some fetus that somewhat looks like a person.

Helmholtz Watson:
So because the "war on drugs" unintentionally targets people from certain "socio-economic background[s]", should it stop? No it shouldn't. Same goes here.

It is ineffective and discriminatory. Of course it should stop.

Helmholtz Watson:
Did you read what I typed before you strawmaned what I said? Go back an look at what I said, actually let me just quote myself....

I am not straw-manning anything. I am disagreeing with you. You think such laws aren't dehumanising, I think they are. Perhaps you should learn the meaning of 'strawman' before you go screaming it in the hope it will make you sound smarter.

Helmholtz Watson:
I made a distinguished between women who live a healthy life and unfortunately have a miscarriage and women who know they are pregnant and put the fetus in danger by drinking and consuming narcotics.
Also, I specifically said that I recognized that pregnant women were human beings, you not even trying to hide the fact that you over looked what I typed.

So because you said it I have to accept it? I looked at what you typed. I think what you typed is wrong. I am telling you that such laws are unacceptable because, for one, even though there is no healthy amount of alcohol, doctors say a glass of red wine is fine. Secondly, even though we know smoking and drinking results in a higher incidence of miscarriage, there is no way to prove the two were directly related. Prosecuting a woman who had a single glass of wine, or two glasses of wine, isn't any less legitimate than prosecuting a woman who has gotten drunk a few times during her pregnancy.

If even a single glass of wine is unhealthy, even if it only poses a minute risk, should a woman be allowed even that much?

Helmholtz Watson:
And I find it disgusting that you would suggest that a law on women who intentionally put their child in harms way, shouldn't be created to punished them because they might "feel bad". Also, mental illness doesn't mean you get off scott free, you still get a form a of punishment and if you're a drug addict and kill a child/children[1], you need to be punished/treated for your horrific actions.

Yes, and I think such an idea places an unreasonable standard upon women and is inappropriate and sexist.

Helmholtz Watson:
I don't think deliberate child murder is fine. Look back at the quote of myself I just cited in this response, I'm not advocating for women who did everything right and still have a miscarriage to be punished.

No, you initially said you were pro-abortion. Why do you think deliberately killing a foetus is fine but accidentally killing one isn't?

[1] Going off the premise of what the OP said about "life at conception"

manic_depressive13:

I am not straw-manning anything. I am disagreeing with you. You think such laws aren't dehumanising, I think they are. Perhaps you should learn the meaning of 'strawman' before you go screaming it in the hope it will make you sound smarter.

You said that I wanted to hold women who had a healthy lifestyle accountable for their miscarrage, that is a strawman. I did no such thing and quoted myself to further clarify that I didn't support such an outrageous notion. You also said that I encouraged the thought of a pregnant women as human second. Nonsense, I did no such thing, I specifically recognized them as human beings.

You falsely represented my thoughts.

manic_depressive13:

So because you said it I have to accept it?

That I think there is a difference between a women who knows shes pregnant and decides to continue to get drunk and has a miscarriage as a result versus a women who does her best to maintain her health but still tragically has a miscarriage? Yeah, you have to accept that I know what my beliefs are and that I don't consider both women to have committed criminal acts, only the women who intentionally drank.

manic_depressive13:
I looked at what you typed. I think what you typed is wrong. I am telling you that such laws are unacceptable because, for one, even though there is no healthy amount of alcohol, doctors say a glass of red wine is fine.

For a pregnant women or for the average adult person?

manic_depressive13:
Secondly, even though we know smoking and drinking results in a higher incidence of miscarriage, there is no way to prove the two were directly related. Prosecuting a woman who had a single glass of wine, or two glasses of wine, isn't any less legitimate than prosecuting a woman who has gotten drunk a few times during her pregnancy.

There is a massive difference between one glass of wine and "[getting] drunk a few times during [their] pregnancy". You know that as well as I do,

manic_depressive13:

If even a single glass of wine is unhealthy, even if it only poses a minute risk, should a woman be allowed even that much?

I'd leave it up to a doctor to determine, but if I had to say, no she should not be allowed to have it. However I'm not opposed to a women coming in contact with alcohol if its for medical reasons(like being used as a disinfectant).

manic_depressive13:

Helmholtz Watson:
And I find it disgusting that you would suggest that a law on women who intentionally put their child in harms way, shouldn't be created to punished them because they might "feel bad". Also, mental illness doesn't mean you get off scott free, you still get a form a of punishment and if you're a drug addict and kill a child/children[1], you need to be punished/treated for your horrific actions.

Yes, and I think such an idea places an unreasonable standard upon women and is inappropriate and sexist.

Unreasonable standard? I'm not asking pregnant women to be charged for a crime if they are the victim of second hand smoking, I'm asking a women not to knowingly consume things that could damage or kill a child[2]. You know what other "unreasonable standard" I would place on pregnant women? Not to go on roller coasters, scuba dive, go in hot tubs and a few other activities. There is nothing sexist about punishing a person who commits infanticide[3].

manic_depressive13:

No, you initially said you were pro-abortion. Why do you think deliberately killing a foetus is fine but accidentally killing one isn't?

Because we are going on the idea of "conception equals life" and if I agreed to that(which in reality I don't) then I would be against abortion and pregnant women taking drugs that kill their "children". However, if I don't have to agree with the concept that you asked me to agree to in the OP, then I would say that would be take the same stance on accidentally killing as I do on abortions, it should be illegal if it happens during the third trimester.

[1] Going off the premise of what the OP said about "life at conception"
[2] see OP comment about "Conception equals life"
[3] I say this going of the agreed concept that "conception equals life"

Helmholtz Watson:
You said that I wanted to hold women who had a healthy lifestyle accountable for their miscarrage, that is a strawman. I did no such thing and quoted myself to further clarify that I didn't support such an outrageous notion. You also said that I encouraged the thought of a pregnant women as human second. Nonsense, I did no such thing, I specifically recognized them as human beings.

You falsely represented my thoughts.

No, I said you are not considering the repercussions of what you propose. I said that with the restrictions you are positing, even someone who is relatively healthy could be charged with a criminal offense. The only person strawmanning here is you. Your false accusations are themselves a red herring. Please stop trying to get the upper hand by misrepresenting my criticism of your position.

That I think there is a difference between a women who knows shes pregnant and decides to continue to get drunk and has a miscarriage as a result versus a women who does her best to maintain her health but still tragically has a miscarriage? Yeah, you have to accept that I know what my beliefs are and that I don't consider both women to have committed criminal acts, only the women who intentionally drank.

Why can't you understand that things aren't so clear cut? There's a middle ground between perfect incubator and a vicious negligent foetus poisoner. I am saying that even women who make honest mistakes, or simply weren't perfect, would be treated as criminals who killed their child under the laws you are proposing.

There is a massive difference between one glass of wine and "[getting] drunk a few times during [their] pregnancy". You know that as well as I do,

No, I don't know the difference.

I'd leave it up to a doctor to determine, but if I had to say, no she should not be allowed to have it. However I'm not opposed to a women coming in contact with alcohol if its for medical reasons(like being used as a disinfectant).

That's exactly my point. According to doctors, a glass of wine during pregnancy is fine. But a jury might think "she should have been more cautious since she was carrying a child and abstained".

Unreasonable standard? I'm not asking pregnant women to be charged for a crime if they are the victim of second hand smoking, I'm asking a women not to knowingly consume things that could damage or kill a child[1]. You know what other "unreasonable standard" I would place on pregnant women? Not to go on roller coasters, scuba dive, go in hot tubs and a few other activities. There is nothing sexist about punishing a person who commits infanticide[2].

No, what I am saying- and I know it's hard but read carefully- what I am saying is that people who have been exposed to second hand smoke can show signs in their blood, urine or saliva IDENTICAL to those you would show if you yourself had been smoking. So if a woman has a miscarriage and her blood and urine show signs of smoking, but she denies it, there is no way to know if she is a victim or a perpetrator.

Because we are going on the idea of "conception equals life" and if I agreed to that(which in reality I don't) then I would be against abortion and pregnant women taking drugs that kill their "children". However, if I don't have to agree with the concept that you asked me to agree to in the OP, then I would say that would be take the same stance on accidentally killing as I do on abortions, it should be illegal if it happens during the third trimester.

Right, well my actual OP merely asked what the repercussions would be if this premise was accepted, and whether you agree with them. What I didn't ask for was for you to play devil's advocate, then get defensive and start accusing me of saying things I didn't in belligerent justification for opinions you claim not to hold.

In fact I'm done here. I've never had such a baffling and pointless discussion in my life. I can't understand why someone would get so aggressive defending ideas they don't believe in.

[1] see OP comment about "Conception equals life"
[2] I say this going of the agreed concept that "conception equals life"

Helmholtz Watson:
No, no its not. There is nothing arbitrary about it, at that point in time a baby is full formed. Its not longer just some fetus that somewhat looks like a person.

OK, what does "full formed" mean? I wasn't "full formed" until about 17 years of age, when I stopped growing. Or did you mean intellectually fully formed? I'm still working towards that one.

Also your link contains no relevant information.

Frission:

I'm referring to the difference in priorities between us. Your last question in particular, where you mention the box. The other guy used another metaphor. Something about a rabbit and hunter. Both me perplexed because I don't really see it that way and I don't know how it applies.

To put it simply- if there is an action that would make your life easier but might kill someone in the process, would you do it?

Blablahb:
That's not true. A fetus is not a person. You are motivated by 'what it might become' and that makes Frission's comparison accurate. If you're consistent in your point, wanking should be mass murder.

Read again, I didn't say the word person. I listed a bounch of things that a fetus is all of and a sperm is about half of. It's almost like you don't read what I write and just say whatever you're thinking anyway.

That doesn't fly, not at all. What you said there, is that a religious doctrine (protecting clumps of cells because procreation is mandatory) is more important than the most elementary, the most basic of all forms of freedom, namely the integrity of the own body.

I don't think many will agree with you that religious dogma is more important than people being stripped of all their freedom. Well, outside of religious lunatics of course, but since when have those ever said anything sensible?

Clearly, religion is the only reason that someone would think a living human organism had rights. I see. It's ok, though, because one time you implied that science was outdated, and I can take refuge in that.

Batou667:

Helmholtz Watson:
No, no its not. There is nothing arbitrary about it, at that point in time a baby is full formed. Its not longer just some fetus that somewhat looks like a person.

OK, what does "full formed" mean? I wasn't "full formed" until about 17 years of age, when I stopped growing. Or did you mean intellectually fully formed? I'm still working towards that one.

Also your link contains no relevant information.

Full formed, as in a fully physically developed human infant.

The link is relevant because it shows that 9 months isn't arbitrary, its when a human baby is typically[1] fully formed.

[1] Obviously some people are born before or after the predicted date of birth

manic_depressive13:

No, I said you are not considering the repercussions of what you propose. I said that with the restrictions you are positing, even someone who is relatively healthy could be charged with a criminal offense. The only person strawmanning here is you. Your false accusations are themselves a red herring. Please stop trying to get the upper hand by misrepresenting my criticism of your position.

There is nothing false about what I said, you accused me of not considering pregnant women as human beings after I had specifically stated that I recognize them as such.

manic_depressive13:

Why can't you understand that things aren't so clear cut? There's a middle ground between perfect incubator and a vicious negligent foetus poisoner. I am saying that even women who make honest mistakes, or simply weren't perfect, would be treated as criminals who killed their child under the laws you are proposing.

If they make honest mistakes, then I trust that a judge and/or jury would take this into account.

manic_depressive13:

There is a massive difference between one glass of wine and "[getting] drunk a few times during [their] pregnancy". You know that as well as I do,

No, I don't know the difference.

-_- ......really? You can't comprehend the difference between five ounces of wine and perhaps forty-five ounces of wine?

Your not even trying to be serious now.

manic_depressive13:

That's exactly my point. According to doctors, a glass of wine during pregnancy is fine. But a jury might think "she should have been more cautious since she was carrying a child and abstained".

First off, please give the source of this information because I have always been told that pregnant women should not consume alcohol. Second, does your source say if having one glass of wine a day might result in Fetal alcohol syndrome? Lastly, if what you say is true, then the women's lawyer can cite the same source as you and inform the jury.

manic_depressive13:

No, what I am saying- and I know it's hard but read carefully- what I am saying is that people who have been exposed to second hand smoke can show signs in their blood, urine or saliva IDENTICAL to those you would show if you yourself had been smoking. So if a woman has a miscarriage and her blood and urine show signs of smoking, but she denies it, there is no way to know if she is a victim or a perpetrator.

Again, I need to see a source on this because I don't believe that doctors/scientist can't tell the difference between a pregnant women who lives in a apartment where her landlord smokes and a women who smokes while she is pregnant.

manic_depressive13:

Right, well my actual OP merely asked what the repercussions would be if this premise was accepted, and whether you agree with them. What I didn't ask for was for you to play devil's advocate, then get defensive and start accusing me of saying things I didn't in belligerent justification for opinions you claim not to hold.

I made it quite clear in my first response that I was only going along with "conception equals life" for the sake of the argument, hence my multiple footnotes where I brought that up. You asked me what the repercussions would be and I answered.

manic_depressive13:

In fact I'm done here. I've never had such a baffling and pointless discussion in my life. I can't understand why someone would get so aggressive defending ideas they don't believe in.

Good, because you clearly are not being serious if you expect me to believe you don't know the difference between a single glass of wine, and about nine glasses of wine. The fact that you didn't cite your claims that one glass of wine is healthy for a pregnant women and that scientist can't distinguish between a smoker and a person who inhales second hand smoking, doesn't help your case.

tstorm823:

To put it simply- if there is an action that would make your life easier but might kill someone in the process, would you do it?

You mean, like driving a car?

Helmholtz Watson:
Full formed, as in a fully physically developed human infant.

The link is relevant because it shows that 9 months isn't arbitrary, its when a human baby is typically fully formed.

It's still a bit arbitrary. Sure, it's probably self-evidently the point where a foetus becomes a baby, since that's the typical gestation period. But then again, really quite severely premature babies can survive given a bit of luck and medical attention. And even a healthy newborn child is completely helpless and utterly dependent on its mother for the first few months of life; can we really call that "fully formed"?

To be honest I have no dog in this fight, I just think it's interesting how the concept of whether a foetus is/isn't a human is so malleable. I think it probably all hinges on the fact that us humans are probably too heavily invested in the idea of life and get pretty irrational about it.

Batou667:

It's still a bit arbitrary. Sure, it's probably self-evidently the point where a foetus becomes a baby, since that's the typical gestation period. But then again, really quite severely premature babies can survive given a bit of luck and medical attention.

I just addressed that there were exemptions, it doesn't change the fact the nine months is still the standard.

Batou667:
And even a healthy newborn child is completely helpless and utterly dependent on its mother for the first few months of life; can we really call that "fully formed"?

Yes we can because baby's mothers die all the time and some of these babies without mothers even become successful musicians. So yes, a human infant is fully formed.

Batou667:

To be honest I have no dog in this fight, I just think it's interesting how the concept of whether a foetus is/isn't a human is so malleable. I think it probably all hinges on the fact that us humans are probably too heavily invested in the idea of life and get pretty irrational about it.

That's pretty fair to say, we might be able to be more objective if we were discussing something more alien like insects or fish.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked