A hypothetical Zika-virus question for the anti-abortion crowd

[fskimospy]

Do you agree with the law?
Perhaps. If her actions are deemed wreckless then I see no problem with charging her with a crime.

A car crash can't be 'wreckless'! HAR HAR.

 

[buckshot24]

You can use whatever reasoning your willing to accept for yourself, it doesn't change that abortion is fundamentally and primarily a selfish act.

To deprive a person of their life for their own convenience is the ultimate selfish act.

 

[JD50]

To deprive a person of their life for their own convenience is the ultimate selfish act.

Good thing abortion isn't depriving a person of their life.

 

[Paratus]

Do you agree with the law?
Perhaps. If her actions are deemed wreckless then I see no problem with charging her with a crime.

I feel that someone who injures a woman and causes her to miscarriage has done more harm than if done to a non-pregnant woman and should be subject to more severe penalties. I wouldn't call it murder however.


For the scenario let's say she was doing something that was known to have a significant risk, say 5 or 10%, of causing a miscarriage but did it anyway and miscarried. You'd be comfortable with a manslaughter charge? Should she be held responsible?

What if it was the father doing something with the same risk that could cause miscarriage in the mother and she did. Should manslaughter charges be brought? Should he be held responsible?

 

[buckshot24]

I feel that someone who injures a woman and causes her to miscarriage has done more harm than if done to a non-pregnant woman and should be subject to more severe penalties. I wouldn't call it murder however.

Even if the woman had a due date the next day?

For the scenario let's say she was doing something that was known to have a significant risk, say 5 or 10%, of causing a miscarriage but did it anyway and miscarried. You'd be comfortable with a manslaughter charge? Should she be held responsible?

I'm comfortable with charging them with the same crime they would be charged with if they recklessly caused the death of any person.

What if it was the father doing something with the same risk that could cause miscarriage in the mother and she did. Should manslaughter charges be brought? Should he be held responsible?

The same charges for any other reckless accidently caused death.

 

[Paratus]

Even if the woman had a due date the next day?

I'm comfortable with charging them with the same crime they would be charged with if they recklessly caused the death of any person.
The same charges for any other reckless accidently caused death.

A day before the due date? I'd be fine calling it murder. Quite frankly that late in pregnancy there is basically never an abortion performed.


Well that's at least consistent.

One last question.

I'm a father and I believe you are as well. As you maybe aware the act of procreating has a 50-70% chance of miscarriage from the time the egg is fertilized.

http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm (different articles have different rates but they are all multiples of our 5%-10% risk scenario above)

Unless you managed to get pregnant during the first month of trying it's almost a certainty that there was a fertilized egg that miscarried. From a prolifer position this is a dead child.

From the definition of involuntary manslaughter

Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.

The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.

The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

So a child died
With a 50-70% chance of death the act is inherently dangerous
A responsible person should know the risks before having unprotected sex.

So my question is why aren't we guilty of, at the bare minimum, involuntary manslaughter for having kids?

 

[buckshot24]

So a child died
With a 50-70% chance of death the act is inherently dangerous
A responsible person should know the risks before having unprotected sex.

So my question is why aren't we guilty of, at the bare minimum, involuntary manslaughter for having kids?

So the trap has been sprung!

The creation of a life could hardly be considered "reckless disregard for human life".

 

[Paratus]

So the trap has been sprung!

The creation of a life could hardly be considered "reckless disregard for human life".

:twisted: ()
Yes and no.

It's the logical fallout from assuming a fertilized egg is a person, morally and legally.

A woman seeking an abortion is seeking to end one "child". A couple trying to conceive will be ending as many "children" as it takes for one to be born because they want one.

I'll also point out the second statement about involuntary manslaughter is an or statement. The act is inherently dangerous whether or not their was disregard human life.

An argument could even been made for it being a disregard for human life. Sure we want a child but we're willingly disregarding the ones who didn't make it so we could have the one that did.

The last point I'll make is almost no one truly considers a fertilized egg the same as a born child. Many say they do. I'll grant many believe they do but almost no one acts as if they do.

No one has funerals for fertilized eggs that failed to implant. Sure some people do after they realize they're pregnant and miscarry late in term but otherwise those fertilized eggs are disregarded.

So I'll ask again, should we be responsible for the "children" who died so ours could live. Or are you willing to concede there's a significant moral difference between a fertilized egg and baby that's full term?

 

[glenn1]

:twisted: ()
Yes and no.

It's the logical fallout from assuming a fertilized egg is a person, morally and legally.

A woman seeking an abortion is seeking to end one "child". A couple trying to conceive will be ending as many "children" as it takes for one to be born because they want one.

I'll also point out the second statement about involuntary manslaughter is an or statement. The act is inherently dangerous whether or not their was disregard human life.

An argument could even been made for it being a disregard for human life. Sure we want a child but we're willingly disregarding the ones who didn't make it so we could have the one that did.

The last point I'll make is almost no one truly considers a fertilized egg the same as a born child. Many say they do. I'll grant many believe they do but almost no one acts as if they do.

No one has funerals for fertilized eggs that failed to implant. Sure some people do after they realize they're pregnant and miscarry late in term but otherwise those fertilized eggs are disregarded.

So I'll ask again, should we be responsible for the "children" who died so ours could live. Or are you willing to concede there's a significant moral difference between a fertilized egg and baby that's full term?

What action from the parent are you saying we should hold them accountable for? An abortion is an act of commission whereas miscarriage is random chance that there is nothing the parents could realistically do to prevent. We don't blame parents if their child dies from a disease like cancer, but would if the parent drowned them.

 

[fskimospy]

What action from the parent are you saying we should hold them accountable for? An abortion is an act of commission whereas miscarriage is random chance that there is nothing the parents could realistically do to prevent. We don't blame parents if their child dies from a disease like cancer, but would if the parent drowned them.

Doesn't matter if it is intentional. Did you read the definition? Inherently dangerous. If every time you conceive there is a 70% chance of loss of human life that sounds inherently dangerous to me.

This is one of many reasons why the idea that something is a person at conception is a deeply silly idea that no one actually believes.

 

[Paratus]

What action from the parent are you saying we should hold them accountable for? An abortion is an act of commission whereas miscarriage is random chance that there is nothing the parents could realistically do to prevent. We don't blame parents if their child dies from a disease like cancer, but would if the parent drowned them.

The chance of death is common knowledge or should be for people who are responsible about procreating. Cancer is random miscarriage is the likely outcome of trying to get pregnant.

Unless someone's holding guns to people's heads or God is knocking up way more virgins than just Mary, what the parents could realistically do to avoid miscarriage is not have unprotected sex.

 

[glenn1]

Doesn't matter if it is intentional. Did you read the definition? Inherently dangerous. If every time you conceive there is a 70% chance of loss of human life that sounds inherently dangerous to me.

This is one of many reasons why the idea that something is a person at conception is a deeply silly idea that no one actually believes.

So most businesses fail while still in the startup phase, does that mean you also think entrepreneurship is "inherently dangerous"? You are trying to use the logical fallacy of reducio ad absurdum and failing because the comparison is ridiculous. Pro-lifer folks want to discourage voluntary and deliberate acts to destroy fetuses (or perhaps acts of willfully gross negligence), not acts of God. That exactly parallels what we do for those who are born.

 

[Paratus]

So most businesses fail while still in the startup phase, does that mean you also think entrepreneurship is "inherently dangerous"? You are trying to use the logical fallacy of reducio ad absurdum and failing because the comparison is ridiculous. Pro-lifer folks want to discourage voluntary and deliberate acts to destroy fetuses (or perhaps acts of willfully gross negligence), not acts of God. That exactly parallels what we do for those who are born.

Entrepreneurship doesn't usually kill children.

So your act to procreate is "an act of God"? Sounds like you don't want to take responsibility for your actions. How do you feel about people who don't take responsibility for the consequences of their choice to have sex?

 

[glenn1]

Entrepreneurship doesn't usually kill children.

So your act to procreate is "an act of God"? Sounds like you don't want to take responsibility for your actions. How do you feel about people who don't take responsibility for the consequences of their choice to have sex?

I think the people who don't take responsibility for the consequences of having sex by choosing to have an abortion are selfish and should be subject to shame for that irresponsibility. Where I differ from the pro-lifer set is I think people should be allowed to exercise the right to be irresponsible. Where I differ from pro-choice is on actually recognizing that irresponsibility for what it is and not allowing the parents to hide it behind the cloak of "privacy" so they can attempt to avoid any thoughts about the selfishness and self serving nature of what they did.

 

[fskimospy]

So most businesses fail while still in the startup phase, does that mean you also think entrepreneurship is "inherently dangerous"? You are trying to use the logical fallacy of reducio ad absurdum and failing because the comparison is ridiculous. Pro-lifer folks want to discourage voluntary and deliberate acts to destroy fetuses (or perhaps acts of willfully gross negligence), not acts of God. That exactly parallels what we do for those who are born.

Inherently dangerous in this sense refers to a high inherent likelihood of human injury or death. Making a new business doesn't do that. So, invalid comparison.

The comparison is ridiculous but that's because the pro-life position is inherently ridiculous.

 

[buckshot24]

So I'll ask again, should we be responsible for the "children" who died so ours could live. Or are you willing to concede there's a significant moral difference between a fertilized egg and baby that's full term?

No, I do not think people should be charged with manslaughter for having babies. There is nothing reckless here.

 

[Paratus]

No, I do not think people should be charged with manslaughter for having babies. There is nothing reckless here.

I don't either. But the view that a fertilized egg is the same as a child is inconsistent with your post.

Do you have an argument as to why viewing a fertilized egg as a child is consistent with what you posted?

 

[glenn1]

Inherently dangerous in this sense refers to a high inherent likelihood of human injury or death. Making a new business doesn't do that. So, invalid comparison.

The comparison is ridiculous but that's because the pro-life position is inherently ridiculous.

No it's just that you're being purposely obtuse. There are some who view human life as beginning at conception, and they feel it's a legitimate state interest to not allow others to take actions (or willful inaction) directly meant to destroy that life. There's no inconsistency in their position between a life born or unborn. And presumably you also agree that it's a legitimate state interest when it's someone who is born.

Your ridiculous contortion is to say they want any possible action (or inaction) that creates any risk whatsoever might threaten or destroy that life to be criminalized also without any regard whether that was the intent or not. There is literally no way to not break that condition whether by commission or omission of any possible act. For example, a fetus needs nutrition but if the mother eats they may choke to death therefore the mother should not eat using your "logic." Or the mother needs medical treatment to save the baby's life, so may get in a car accident driving to the doctors' office thus she's guilty either way whether she goes or not.

 

[Paratus]

No it's just that you're being purposely obtuse. There are some who view human life as beginning at conception, and they feel it's a legitimate state interest to not allow others to take actions (or willful inaction) directly meant to destroy that life. There's no inconsistency in their position between a life born or unborn. And presumably you also agree that it's a legitimate state interest when it's someone who is born.

Your ridiculous contortion is to say they want any possible action (or inaction) that creates any risk whatsoever might threaten or destroy that life to be criminalized also without any regard whether that was the intent or not. There is literally no way to not break that condition whether by commission or omission of any possible act. For example, a fetus needs nutrition but if the mother eats they may choke to death therefore the mother should not eat using your "logic." Or the mother needs medical treatment to save the baby's life, so may get in a car accident driving to the doctors' office thus she's guilty either way whether she goes or not.

The legal definition of manslaughter is pretty clear. Eating and driving is not "inherently life threatening".

(Your annual chance of dying in a car accident is 1/8800 or .011%. The risk to a fertilized egg is between 50% and 70% or like playing Russian roulette with a revolver loaded with 3-4 bullets.)


I'll also point out that your comment about abortion always being a selfish response to an irresponsible act paints with to broad a brush. Lower economic couples who already have children and have a failure of birth control are neither selfish nor irresponsible when considering whether to allow a pregnancy to continue when faced with the effects on their current family.

 

[buckshot24]

I don't either. But the view that a fertilized egg is the same as a child is inconsistent with your post.

Do you have an argument as to why viewing a fertilized egg as a child is consistent with what you posted?

The very process of producing children is what you are saying is reckless to life. It's ridiculous.

 

[fskimospy]

No it's just that you're being purposely obtuse. There are some who view human life as beginning at conception, and they feel it's a legitimate state interest to not allow others to take actions (or willful inaction) directly meant to destroy that life. There's no inconsistency in their position between a life born or unborn. And presumably you also agree that it's a legitimate state interest when it's someone who is born.

Your ridiculous contortion is to say they want any possible action (or inaction) that creates any risk whatsoever might threaten or destroy that life to be criminalized also without any regard whether that was the intent or not. There is literally no way to not break that condition whether by commission or omission of any possible act. For example, a fetus needs nutrition but if the mother eats they may choke to death therefore the mother should not eat using your "logic." Or the mother needs medical treatment to save the baby's life, so may get in a car accident driving to the doctors' office thus she's guilty either way whether she goes or not.

Now you're deliberately attempting to distort manslaughter laws.

It's funny that all the parade of horribles you mention has never happened despite manslaughter not having the intent requirement that you say is necessary. Can you explain why we have been so lucky for so long?

 

[fskimospy]

The very process of producing children is what you are saying is reckless to life. It's ridiculous.

So maybe that makes your definition of human life ridiculous, haha.

Have you considered this? I guarantee you don't actually view a fertilized embryo as the same thing as a baby anyway.

 

[Paratus]

The very process of producing children is what you are saying is reckless to life. It's ridiculous.

You walked down the logic right with me. I don't see how it can't be reckless if we assume a fertilized egg is the same as a child. I agree its ridiculous. So why isn't it reckless?

 

[glenn1]

Now you're deliberately attempting to distort manslaughter laws.

It's funny that all the parade of horribles you mention has never happened despite manslaughter not having the intent requirement that you say is necessary. Can you explain why we have been so lucky for so long?

No, I'm actually smart enough to interpret plain English correctly as I'm not trying tod desperately justify my own bias via an irrelevant comparison.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.

Miscarriage is not intentional, nowris there any reasonable means of exercising "due caution and circumspection" to prevent it.

Even *IF* we completely went with your ridiculous theory and facially wrong legal interpretation, that STILL wouldn't speak to the morality or justification for laws aimed at reducing or eliminating abortion as an intentional act, it would just reflect the unjust nature of enforcing such a law against people when they have no means to avoid not breaking that law. If you criminalize abortion, then you can avoid getting penalized by the action of not having an abortion, whereas if you criminalize miscarriages everyone who engages in heterosexual sex will be convicted with no means of defense.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I'm actually smart enough to interpret plain English correctly as I'm not trying tod desperately justify my own bias via an irrelevant comparison.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

Miscarriage is not intentional, nowris there any reasonable means of exercising "due caution and circumspection" to prevent it.

Even *IF* we completely went with your ridiculous theory and facially wrong legal interpretation, that STILL wouldn't speak to the morality or justification for laws aimed at reducing or eliminating abortion as an intentional act, it would just reflect the unjust nature of enforcing such a law against people when they have no means to avoid not breaking that law. If you criminalize abortion, then you can avoid getting penalized by the action of not having an abortion, whereas if you criminalize miscarriages everyone who engages in heterosexual sex will be convicted with no means of defense.

Lol. From your own link, just a bit further down:

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without intent. The absence of the intent element is the essential difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Also in most states, involuntary manslaughter does not result from a heat of passion but from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while in the commission of a lawful act or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.

You should really read your own links before posting them. It would prevent you from owning yourself like this. Since you thought your link was a credible source, presumably you now agree with us.

You could absolutely avoid manslaughter from pregnancy by not having sex. Again this is a ridiculous idea, but that's because the idea that something is a person from conception is a ridiculous idea. No rational person actually believes it. Your problem is that you're flailing against the consequences of the ridiculousness of embryos as a person instead of just admitting that embryos as a person is stupid and that nobody believes it.