Twenty Questions--Abortion Edition [Archive]

The Nazz

12-03-2006, 07:54

Findan

12-03-2006, 07:59

IL Ruffino

12-03-2006, 07:59

I like these questions. Can't answer em tho. I'm that ole chesnut, ProChoice.

Shotagon

12-03-2006, 08:13

Lol, right now you can't be prosecuted for them because it isn't against the law. Should it ever become law, they can't be prosecuted for anything done before that law was enacted either. Relevancy of these questions as of now: 0%. Thank you, Molly. :p

The Nazz

12-03-2006, 08:18

Shotagon

12-03-2006, 08:41

It's a thought experiment, and you failed to think. Thanks for trying, however.You said quite clearly, "answer," present tense. As of now, the statements aren't illegal and I answered your question. If you wanted a thought experiment then you should say so explicitly, because it looks like your question may have been worded incorrectly. :)

The Nazz

12-03-2006, 08:46

You said quite clearly, "answer," present tense. As of now, the statements aren't illegal and I answered your question. If you wanted a thought experiment then you should say so explicitly, because it looks like your question may have been worded incorrectly. :)
The questions are phrased using the term "should" which connotes personal opinion rather than a question of objective reality. You failed to realize that bceause you were too busy trying to make a smartass remark.

Sarkhaan

12-03-2006, 08:56

You said quite clearly, "answer," present tense. As of now, the statements aren't illegal and I answered your question. If you wanted a thought experiment then you should say so explicitly, because it looks like your question may have been worded incorrectly. :)
they are moral/ethical questions. Current laws have no impact on what you think is right or wrong, and THAT is what the questions ask.

MrMopar

12-03-2006, 09:41

1) No, just a hefty fine and/or house arrest for while...

2) No.

3) No.

4) See #1.

5) Yes.

6) No.

7) Yes.

8) No.

9) Yes.

10) No.

11) No.

12) No, the thought of it is absurd.

13) Yes.

14) No.

15) No.

16) Yes.

17) No.

18) No.

19) No.

20) It would help make things less crowded, which is good, but no.

Randomlittleisland

12-03-2006, 12:42

Eutrusca

12-03-2006, 13:02

Quaon

12-03-2006, 14:34

1) No

2) No

3) No

4) No

5) No, but possibly a crime

6) See 5

7) No, see 5

8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?

9) No

10) No

11) No, though there might be a case to sue them

12) See 11

13) Yes, see 5

14) That is the sickist anti-abortion question I have ever seen. NO

15) No, unless he gives her chemotherapy under false pretensions, at which point it is either malpractice or murder.

16) If the doctor told the parent to stop, yes

17) No

18) No

19) See 5. And forcefully removed will probably kill the fetus.

20) No

The Nazz

12-03-2006, 17:55

I answered most of the questions in the negative, but not because of viewing the unborn child as an undifferentiated lump of tissue.

I did find this one extremely interesting: "11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?"

Most lawyers could probably make an excellent case for criminal negligence, although I don't think "mass murder" would make a viable case.
Well, you don't have to see the fetus as an undifferentiated lump of tissue to realize that the anti-choice's point of view on when life begins is biologically speaking, crap. That's the real point of these questions--to explore the ramifications of the argument that to prevent implantation of an embryo is somehow murder, and what it really means if we're going to say, legally, that life begins at fertilization.

Ashmoria

12-03-2006, 18:06

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?

i really dont understand why the prolife radicals arent trying to shut down fertility clinics completely

at least with abortion clinics, women are aborting unwanted and unintended pregnancies. a fertility clinic is set up to kill hundreds of embryos by creating, and sometimes implanting, many more than will ever be given a chance to become a baby.

that they DONT indicates to me that they are only interested in punishing women for having sex.

Dempublicents1

12-03-2006, 18:11

The only one of those I could see someone logically saying yes to is #16 - provided that the mother knew the damage could be done. If she is *trying* to carry to term, then she is responsible for the results of her actions. It would be like me running a business that poisoned a well for years - and I knew it would do that to the drinking water. No one was harmed at the time, but when a city started using the well and people got sick, I could certainly be sued, even if my compnay had been gone for several years.

The Nazz

12-03-2006, 18:27

i really dont understand why the prolife radicals arent trying to shut down fertility clinics completely

at least with abortion clinics, women are aborting unwanted and unintended pregnancies. a fertility clinic is set up to kill hundreds of embryos by creating, and sometimes implanting, many more than will ever be given a chance to become a baby.

that they DONT indicates to me that they are only interested in punishing women for having sex.
There are some anti-choice activists who are trying to shut them down, and I'll give them this much--they're consistent. They're misguided, but they're consistent. They're also the groups that supposedy anti-choice politicians avoid like the plague because they know that these groups are extremely fringe.

Adriatica II

12-03-2006, 19:02

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?

Since I oppose the death penelty anyway I wouldnt recomend that and its rather foolish and hypocricial to kill someone for killing someone else. But I do agree a prison sentence should be imposed

2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?

Indeed. However the sentence should obviously vary according to how much he assisted her in finding the abortion doctor.

3) How about her friends who know?

See above. However I should point out that if it was actually illegal, I doubt she would tell many people.

4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?

The system for punishing those who offer the service of abrotion in realtion to those who have one should be the same as the relationship between the sentnceing for drug users and drug dealers.

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?

I would imagine that if a woman was pregnant and such a law was in place, she would not be permited to buy cigerettes and if she was already a smoker, she would be but on a quitting programme by the NHS.

6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?

Practically the same question as 2. Again yes

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?

If a law was made that outlawed abortion and did its best to protect the life of the feotus, its likely that pregnant women would be given a mandatory diet outline in order to protect it. Which if they did deviate from and it did die and it could be proven it was a result of the bad eating then yes she should be prosecuted.

8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?

Kindly stop repeating questions. Again, yes. But again, the charge should be measured in acordance with his level of involvement. If he just knew and did nothing would mean a worse charge than if he knew and tried to stop her.

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?

No. For the simple reason it is not her fault. She should only be proscuted if the death of the fetus was somehow directly her fault. Its not her fault for having the condition.

10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?

No. For the reason it is not his fault

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?

Its more likly they would be prosecuted for making a potentially hazerdous product and the British Safety agency should be investigated for allowing such a product to go through. Under current laws, since there is still no such thing as a corperate killing act (as evidenced by the failure of any signifcient prosecutions for the Paddington rail crash) it is unlikely they would be charged for that specifc instance.

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder?

If there was a coprete killing act yes, if not then no. But in my view their should be one.

13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?

No. The law preventing abortion should also prevent mothers from smoking and if they are smokers put them on a mandatory giving up program

14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?

No. How is it her fault if she gets cancer?

15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?

In the case of a medical operation if it is unavoidable that the fetus's life be thretened to save the mothers then it cannot be helped.

16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?

If it can be proven that the disabilty was caused by the negletful conduct during the pregnacy then yes. However the government should put in enough support networks etc to prevent any negligent conduct in the pregnancy.

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?

Yes. However if anti-abortion legilation passed then I doubt that you would be able to have that many embryos in storage.

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?

No, since they do not depend upon you for anything. The NHS should be providing the stoarge facility for them free of charge.

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?

As I have stated the government if it opposes abortion should put in as many support networks and regulations to prevent negligent behaviour and only prosecute if it results in death or can be proven to have caused disability.

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death? .

If that is how many had an abortion illegally then they should be imprisoned. However those numbers are designed to get an emotional "What! No!!!" response. However in a world where abortion was outlawed, I think the numbers would be substantially lower.

Ashmoria

12-03-2006, 19:22

There are some anti-choice activists who are trying to shut them down, and I'll give them this much--they're consistent. They're misguided, but they're consistent. They're also the groups that supposedy anti-choice politicians avoid like the plague because they know that these groups are extremely fringe.
do they stand outside fertility clinics harrassing women going in and screaming at them to not murder their babies?

do they publish the names and addresses of fertility doctors so that the mentally imbalanced among them can call the doctors up and threaten their families?

have they bombed any fertility clinics so that they might stop this evil practice?

Dempublicents1

12-03-2006, 19:38

Since I oppose the death penelty anyway I wouldnt recomend that and its rather foolish and hypocricial to kill someone for killing someone else. But I do agree a prison sentence should be imposed

A life sentence?

The system for punishing those who offer the service of abrotion in realtion to those who have one should be the same as the relationship between the sentnceing for drug users and drug dealers.

I thought we were talking about murder? Shouldn't it be the relationship between sentencing assassins and those who pay them to kill people?

I would imagine that if a woman was pregnant and such a law was in place, she would not be permited to buy cigerettes and if she was already a smoker, she would be but on a quitting programme by the NHS.

How would the store owner know until she either told them or was showing? Are we going to make anyone who has had a positive pregnancy test carry special cards now to let everyone know of their condition? What about making them wear a symbol, such as a "Baby on Board" sticker?

If a law was made that outlawed abortion and did its best to protect the life of the feotus, its likely that pregnant women would be given a mandatory diet outline in order to protect it. Which if they did deviate from and it did die and it could be proven it was a result of the bad eating then yes she should be prosecuted.

Wow, you are seriously going into the idea that all women should be controlled by the state here. What about her eating habits before she finds out she is definitely pregnant? If we really want to protect embryos and fetuses, we're going to have to put *all* women who have gone through puberty and are not either sterilized or past menopause on a strict diet, and make sure they adhere to it.

No. For the simple reason it is not her fault. She should only be proscuted if the death of the fetus was somehow directly her fault. Its not her fault for having the condition.

No, but if we're all about protecting embryos/fetuses, she should have been forcibly sterilized so that she coudn't get pregnant at all, right? Just like how the government is going to control her diet and habits 24/7 to protect her possible pregnancies.

Its more likly they would be prosecuted for making a potentially hazerdous product and the British Safety agency should be investigated for allowing such a product to go through. Under current laws, since there is still no such thing as a corperate killing act (as evidenced by the failure of any signifcient prosecutions for the Paddington rail crash) it is unlikely they would be charged for that specifc instance.

The question was *should*, not *would*. Do you think that a company who has a faulty product that results in the destruction of 1000 embryos should be charged with mass murder, or at the least negligent homicide of 1000 people?

No. How is it her fault if she gets cancer?

It isn't. But if she goes through chemo, she knows it will likely end her pregnancy. Thus, by all of your logic, she shouldn't be allowed to have chemo.

If it can be proven that the disabilty was caused by the negletful conduct during the pregnacy then yes. However the government should put in enough support networks etc to prevent any negligent conduct in the pregnancy.

These things can never be "proven". But if you can convince a jury....

Yes. However if anti-abortion legilation passed then I doubt that you would be able to have that many embryos in storage.

So you are in favor of shutting down all in vitro fertilization clinics?

No, since they do not depend upon you for anything. The NHS should be providing the stoarge facility for them free of charge.

Make up your mind. Are we banning in vitro fertilization, or is it government run?

Teh_pantless_hero

12-03-2006, 19:49

21) Should a fertility clinic be charged with mass murder if it throws out any embryos?

CanuckHeaven

12-03-2006, 20:41

From the blog Molly Saves the Day (http://mollysavestheday.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_mollysavestheday_archive.html#114188003222232180) I present the following 20 questions to those who claim that abortion is baby killing. If any of you are willing to answer said questions in a consistent way, I'd like to hear from you.

As Molly notes, if you answer "no" to any of these questions, then you may well hate abortion with all your heart, but you don't really believe that the fetus (which, by definition in the South Dakota law is created at fertilization) is equal to a human being, and if that's not the case, then you can't honestly say that abortion is murder. This is the logical position that anti-abortion activists have put us all in.
1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty? YES

However, since the infant mortality rate is 7 per 1,000 in the US, then 7 NO balls should be added with 993 YES balls in a container. If the woman draws out a NO ball then she gets off the charge. :rolleyes:

2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder? YES

Note: What if the husband is not the father? :eek:

3) How about her friends who know? YES

They absolutely would be not very good friends if they didn't try and talk her out of an abortion.

4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty? YES

After all, there are too many Doctors in the US.

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder? YES

And the cigarette manufacturer should also be equally charged for trying to kill the mother and the fetus.

6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent? YES

See #2 Above.

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide? YES

And all sellers of non-nutritional foods that contributed to the death of the fetus should also be charged. :p

8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged? YES

See #2 Above.

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies? YES

Because "almost always" means absolutely. :rolleyes:

10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable? YES

See #2 Above.

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder? YES

Just the company owner, the CEO and the President of the Board of Directors.

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder? YES

Only if the power failure was due to human error. However, it the power went out as an act of God............

13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse? YES

Actually, this is a case where the doctor should make his patient quit smoking. :p

14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die? YES

How dare she try and rid herself of the cancer to the detriment of the fetus. :rolleyes:

15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder? YES

Doctors should be held accountable for their patients fetus from the very moment of conception. It may alter the Doctor's whole lifestyle but so what? :rolleyes:

16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages? YES

And of course the disabled child should be able to sue the companies that were responsible for their mother's impairment. :D

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible? YES

Three sets of quintuplets one year apart would be most reasonable. :rolleyes:

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork? YES

Think of the refund!! This is a no brainer!! :)

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed? YES

See #15 Above.

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death? YES

This will help control the "excess population". You could call it the "Scrooge Laws"?

Eutrusca

12-03-2006, 20:44

Well, you don't have to see the fetus as an undifferentiated lump of tissue to realize that the anti-choice's point of view on when life begins is biologically speaking, crap. That's the real point of these questions--to explore the ramifications of the argument that to prevent implantation of an embryo is somehow murder, and what it really means if we're going to say, legally, that life begins at fertilization.
To me, that's just plain stupid. I tend to lean toward the more practical: there really is no other way to decide if abortion is appropriate than to place the decision squarely where it belongs ... on the one who is pregnant.

Thriceaddict

12-03-2006, 20:46

Eutrusca

12-03-2006, 21:00

Liberal pinko commie :p
Where? Where??

OMG! [ shoots self! ] :D

Myrmidonisia

12-03-2006, 21:04

The Nazz

12-03-2006, 21:44

I noticed something interesting in the answers. Of all the serious efforts, most were willing to punish the smokers, but not the elective aborters, i.e. question #5 was more often yes and question #1 was nearly always no. If these were serious answers, doesn't that seem very hypocritical?
Frankly, so many of the anti-abortion positions are hypocritical that when the positions are put forward bluntly, in terms of outcomes rather than in the hazy "life begins at conception" point of view, they fall apart rather easily.

Katganistan

12-03-2006, 22:39

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
- No. Abortion does not meet the legal definition of murder and is not illegal in many places.

2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
- No. See above.

3) How about her friends who know?
- No. See above.

4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
- No. Under current law, abortion is not a crime.

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?
- No. Smoking is not illegal, though certainly it is ill-advised.

6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?
- No. Smoking is not a crime.

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?
- No. Eating unhealthily is not a crime; and in fact, a woman may not have any choice about that if she is impoverished.

8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?
- No. See above.

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?
- No.

10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?
- No.

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?
- Only if the product was created with the intent to burn down fertility clinics or was knowingly marketed with major dangerous flaws would it be a crime. It would not, however, be mass murder.

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder?
- No.

13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?
- No. Smoking is not a crime, and a fetus is not a child.

14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?
-No.

15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
-No.

16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?
- Yes.

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?
- No.

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?
- No. They are not children.

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?
- No.

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death?
-No.

Aerou

12-03-2006, 23:17

After all, there are too many Doctors in the US.

Hahaha, what?!?!?!

Medical News Today article (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=23779&nfid=rssfeeds)
AMA changes its position on physician shortage (http://www.visalaw.com/print/5hdec03.html)
WebMD Article (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/96/103718.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348})
Yeah, we have faaaarrr "too many Doctors" (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0724drshortage-main24USE.html)

The Alma Mater

12-03-2006, 23:33

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty? YES

However, since the infant mortality rate is 7 per 1,000 in the US, then 7 NO balls should be added with 993 YES balls in a container. If the woman draws out a NO ball then she gets off the charge. :rolleyes:

If you count embryos and fetuses as infants - as I suppose you do considering your answers to the questions - the infant mortality rate is well over 60%. God really digs naturally occuring abortions.

PasturePastry

12-03-2006, 23:39

The Alma Mater

12-03-2006, 23:42

Even with alot of yes votes to these questions, there would be a question of jurisdiction. Youd could take your child to Mexico, kill them, come back to the US, and unless the Mexican authorities wanted to press charges, there's not a damn thing anyone can do.

That's my current understanding of things. I could be wrong and if I am, I would appreciate it if someone pointed it out.

If you give the embryo/fetus the same status as a child one can argue it has the nationality of the country it was conceived in. Killing an American citizen in Mexico can still lead to you being prosecuted in the US when you go back there.

Beetalia

12-03-2006, 23:49

Q23 If woman has sex on any day other than those days the fertilised egg can be implanted in the womb, should she be charged with murder?

Q24 If a woman falls and causes a miscarriage should she be charged with manslaughter?

My favorite discussion on the ethics of when life begins- If you were in a fertility clinic with a three year old and there was a fire- who do you save? The petrie dish full of zygotes or the three year old?

Thriceaddict

12-03-2006, 23:52

Maineiacs

13-03-2006, 00:22

Where? Where??

OMG! [ shoots self! ] :D

It's no use, Eutrusca. Join us. You cannot resist the power of the dark side!

CanuckHeaven

13-03-2006, 00:30

Hahaha, what?!?!?!

Medical News Today article (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=23779&nfid=rssfeeds)
AMA changes its position on physician shortage (http://www.visalaw.com/print/5hdec03.html)
WebMD Article (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/96/103718.htm?lastselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348})
Yeah, we have faaaarrr "too many Doctors" (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0724drshortage-main24USE.html)
Well you see, I was just going on the ASSumption that only Canada had a shortage of Doctors, at least that is what Americans have been telling me in the great debate regarding health care in Canada and the US. :D

CanuckHeaven

13-03-2006, 00:31

If you count embryos and fetuses as infants - as I suppose you do considering your answers to the questions - the infant mortality rate is well over 60%. God really digs naturally occuring abortions.
You really didn't think I was being serious, did you?

The Nazz

13-03-2006, 05:06

You really didn't think I was being serious, did you?
I think he/she did, more's the pity. You have to know that with n00bs, you need to put the [/sarcasm] tag on. :D

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 05:59

Of the known anti-choicers who've answered so far, not one has answered yes to all questions -- seriously, that is. So I guess they don't actually think fetuses are people. I think I'll save their posts and throw them up to them in future abortion debates. Thanks, Nazz! :)

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 06:51

First of all, kudos to PasturePastry for being in Oregon... lol

On a more serious note, I'm guessing many of you have never actually seen some of this stuff.

Let me show you what it is you really support:

LINKS TO GRAPHIC ABORTION PICTURES REMOVED
(I don't agree with everything said at the last website, but the photos account for that)

It really is brutal, isn't it? Now do those honesly look like little blobs of cells, or are they human beings? Be honest now. What do they look like?

In second grade I enjoyed watching that one part in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, where the guy takes the heart out and it's still beating. (That was the first time I saw it). That was awesome.
After seeing these photos nearly 10 years later, however, I not only shivered in disgust and shock, but cried.
That's right. I'm a teen-age guy and I cried.
Hopefully these bloody photos of murdered babies will be enough to prove to you what it is you support and why it should be stopped.
I write this as a request for you to seriously consider your position on abortion based on these photos. I'm guessing I'm gonna get a load of crap for what I'm saying and showing, but after seeing these I don't understand how it could possibly be legal (especially, for fellow Americans, with the existence of the 5th amendment)

Achtung 45

13-03-2006, 06:54

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 07:01

First of all, kudos to PasturePastry for being in Oregon... lol

On a more serious note, I'm guessing many of you have never actually seen some of this stuff.

Keep your porn to yourself, please.

Pictures of fully-realized and born murder victims are also gruesome. So are pictures of soldiers killed in battle, and victims of major car accidents, and footage of caesarian sections and all other kinds of surgery. And the bits that are blown off, cut off, burned off, excised, etc etc etc, all look pretty gruesome, too. So what? It's called life and death, and it's not relevant to this discussion. You're the only one here obsessed with staring at it.

Achtung 45

13-03-2006, 07:04

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 07:08

Keep your porn to yourself, please.

Pictures of fully-realized and born murder victims are also gruesome. So are pictures of soldiers killed in battle, and victims of major car accidents, and footage of caesarian sections and all other kinds of surgery. And the bits that are blown off, cut off, burned off, excised, etc etc etc, all look pretty gruesome, too. So what? It's called life and death, and it's not relevant to this discussion. You're the only one here obsessed with staring at it.First of all, I am appalled that you would call it porn. I must say that was more than a bit desperate.
Second of all, I'm not obssessed with staring at it and I'm sorry you seem to think that.
Third of all, you didn't even respond to the point I was making, which is that they are murder vicitims. Are they brutal photos? Yes! Not pretty to stare at! Which is why I don't. The fact that they are victims of murderous intentions is why it shouldn't be legal.
Finally, how is this not related to life and death? The whole abortion debate is a life or death debate- no matter what side you're on. It is relevant.

Please forgive me for typing this angrily.

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 07:16

I might add that any disgusted reaction to those photos is only helping to prove the pro-life cause.

Achtung 45

13-03-2006, 07:18

I might add that any disgusted reaction to those photos is only helping to prove the pro-life cause.
Prove? That's not proving anything. That's trying to emotinally persuade.

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 07:21

First of all, I am appalled that you would call it porn. I must say that was more than a bit desperate.
Second of all, I'm not obssessed with staring at it and I'm sorry you seem to think that.
Third of all, you didn't even respond to the point I was making, which is that they are murder vicitims. Are they brutal photos? Yes! Not pretty to stare at! Which is why I don't. The fact that they are victims of murderous intentions is why it shouldn't be legal.
Finally, how is this not related to life and death? The whole abortion debate is a life or death debate- no matter what side you're on. It is relevant.

Please forgive me for typing this angrily.
I think it's pretty obvious that I reject your point, but if you need it said, then: I reject your point. I do not believe aborted fetuses are murder victims.

As for not addressing points: You completely ignored the point of this thread, didn't you? Take the challenge and answer the questions.

As for my assessment of your attitude towards these photos: I like to keep the playing field even. I believe you are one of a tiny group of posters who often toss up these links instead of presenting reasonable arguments. It's a tactic meant to silence and intimidate others, but all it does is offend us with its cheap and unnecessary shock-appeal and implied accusations. So I'm offending you in return. Now we're even.

Frankly, I'm suspicious of people who toss around such pictures as if they are trophies. I don't really see a lot of difference between that kind of behavior and other forms of public indecency. You're free to disagree with me, but I don't care if my opinion hurts your feelings.

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 07:26

Killed Iraqis (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album30&id=halfbody)
These people are victims of murderous intentions, yet their killings are legal.

DISCLAIMER: Even more disgusting than the aborted fetuses. Added merely for sake of argument, EXTREMELY graphic, don't view unless you really want to see half of a person.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck16.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck16.gif
Their deaths are, without a doubt, regrettable. That's a given. The reason their deaths are legal, however, is because we (the U.S.) are at war with Iraq. The torture of Iraqi prisoners as seen in Abu Grahib is inexcusable by all means, but the majority of Iraqi deaths occurring due to the war are either in self-defense or are from the very forces we are trying to eliminate. Those killings, while regrettable as was mentioned above, are legal because of the war. Otherwise I would entirely agree with you. Keep in mind there is a difference between "killing" and "murdering."

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 07:28

I might add that any disgusted reaction to those photos is only helping to prove the pro-life cause.
I'm disgusted by the smell of shit. Does that "prove" the anorexia cause that no one should eat food?

I'm disgusted by videos of surgery. Does that "prove" the Jehova's Witness cause that no one should get surgery?

I'm disgusted by pictures of (most) other people having sex. Does that "prove" the celibate cause that no one should have sex?

Your shock tactics "prove" nothing but that you don't know how to present an argument. Answer the 20 questions, if you're so dedicated to your cause.

The Alma Mater

13-03-2006, 07:43

You really didn't think I was being serious, did you?

Nope - but the sad thing is you *should* be.

I think he/she did, more's the pity. You have to know that with n00bs, you need to put the [/sarcasm] tag on. :D

*pets the 2005 padawan*
Good boy, have a cookie :P

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 08:28

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
Under the legal system of the U.S., no. Do they deserve it? Pretty much. Again, look at those photos to see what they put their babies through.
2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
Yes. The extent of his punishment should depend on his influence on the mother however (in terms of her choice to receive an abortion).
3) How about her friends who know?
Same as #2.
4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
Provided they murdered enough babies, yes. I don't know if I consider one murder enough to deserve death or whatever. I think so, but I'll get back to you on that.
5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?
If she starts smoking during the pregnancy, she is excuseless and should be punished. If not, it is an addiction and there's not always something she can do about it, as sad as it is.
6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?
Not really. As a couple they're merely trying to have a baby, and the fact that the woman is a smoker is obviously a risk, but it's not like he's trying to kill the baby or something.
7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?
I think it would depend on the situation.
8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?
Knew... what? About her diet? He can't be held responsible for her mistakes. If he encourages her, however, to eat poorly, he is just as responsible. Perhaps even if he doesn't do anything about it. But again that would depend on the situation.
9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?
No! She does not want the baby to die, she merely wants a baby and gets pregnant so she can have one. That's all.
10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?
If she shouldn't he shouldn't.
11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?
Ummmm... no. Like it's really their fault the fire started, even if it's their product. Is this really one of your top 20 questions?
12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass always their fault the power went out. Even when it is they can't be held responsible if they're merely doing their jobs and have no idea about eh clinic. Unless of course their purpose was to kill those embryos. Which I doubt it would be.
13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?
Pretty much the same as #5.
14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?
If it's required for her survival, I don't know. If not, I don't know. When it comes to the whole survival of the mother issue, I simply don't know where I stand. It's tough either way.
15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
Same as #14. I wish I could give an answer, but as I said it's tough either way.
16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?
Yes. Most definitely. The phrase "negligent conduct" proves it. Would they have to? No, that would be pointless. But they should be allowed to.
17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?
If the embryos die or develop a disability, it is the person's fault. If they're fine, it doesn't matter.
18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?
No- they don't depend on you. They depend on cold temperatures and the mahcine or whatever feeding them. If it's not a machine feeding them, I still say no because your job would be to feed them. Not your personal responsibility.
19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?
I think you all would know my answer to this. Just in case you don't I would say that removal would mean death for the fetus and you know it, so obviously I would object. She should be punished for whatever she does however (and the level of punishment would depend on what she does)
20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death?
If that's how many have abortions, then yes they all deserve imprisonment. I'm not sure where I stand with how extensive the punishment should be, but I would agree with imprisonment at the very least.

If this is your strongest set of questions you're out of luck, because it's not fair to say I'm wrong about what I believe if I don't give the answers you want. These are all extreme questions as you know, and not all of them can be answered with yes's by the average pro-life person. Even ones with reason, as I did my best to show.

Maineiacs, I want to express my sympathy for you with your condition. Really truly. I would like to ask you, though, knowing what you know now, would you really think it would be better for you to have been killed before you were born? Obviously I cannot know what you go through and what that would be like, but I'm wondering what you think about wether you would prefer being dead over being alive? I know this differs from one person to the next but I can't say I've ever talked to someone with a disease like this. If you don't really have it then you can bug off but if you do I would like to hear your input on this.

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 09:00

I think it's pretty obvious that I reject your point, but if you need it said, then: I reject your point. I do not believe aborted fetuses are murder victims.
Noted.
As for not addressing points: You completely ignored the point of this thread, didn't you? Take the challenge and answer the questions.
Since then I answered those questions so if you want you can read that.
As for my assessment of your attitude towards these photos: I like to keep the playing field even. I believe you are one of a tiny group of posters who often toss up these links instead of presenting reasonable arguments. It's a tactic meant to silence and intimidate others, but all it does is offend us with its cheap and unnecessary shock-appeal and implied accusations. So I'm offending you in return. Now we're even.
How are they not reasonable arguments? They should be more than enough to show you how bad abortion is. The fact you're even complaining about them should be enough. Abortion is the method used to achieve results like you see in all those photographs. If you support abortion you support those photographs. Doesn't get any simpler than that.
Frankly, I'm suspicious of people who toss around such pictures as if they are trophies. I don't really see a lot of difference between that kind of behavior and other forms of public indecency. You're free to disagree with me, but I don't care if my opinion hurts your feelings.
Don't worry about hurting my feelings. I can only think of one statement in the last 3 years or so that seriously hurt me. Others I just don't take seriously.
Like calling those photos trophies. I take that as a joke. I showed those photos to help you decide whether abortion really is right. If you support abortion you support those photos. I'm sorry, but in all reality that's what it comes down to. So I ask you: do you support abortion and therefore those photos?

Cabra West

13-03-2006, 09:38

How are they not reasonable arguments? They should be more than enough to show you how bad abortion is. The fact you're even complaining about them should be enough. Abortion is the method used to achieve results like you see in all those photographs. If you support abortion you support those photographs. Doesn't get any simpler than that.

Don't worry about hurting my feelings. I can only think of one statement in the last 3 years or so that seriously hurt me. Others I just don't take seriously.
Like calling those photos trophies. I take that as a joke. I showed those photos to help you decide whether abortion really is right. If you support abortion you support those photos. I'm sorry, but in all reality that's what it comes down to. So I ask you: do you support abortion and therefore those photos?

Honestly... I don't think anybody posting here for more than 3 months would have been able to avoid these pictures or similar ones on a number of occasions. I've lost count how many times people have tried the "omg, look at the poor babies"-approach to prove their point.

The fact that something does not look aesthetically appealing doesn't mean it is wrong or in any way legal. Have you ever seen pictures of an eye-operation? An amputation? Should those be illegal then as well, because they look appaling and disgusting?

Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is that as those thing look like humans, they automatically are human and killing them would be equivalent to murder.
Now, first of, having legs and toes doesn't make a human being. A vast number of animals have the same physical structure, and some of there we actually eat.
Second, having a body that's roughly shaped like a human body doesn't mean it's a living human being. General consens is that human life begins and ends with measurable brain activity, which, as far as I know, cannot be asserted in embryos until the 12th week. Any abortion before that I would regard as perfectly acceptable, any abortion afterwards should only take place if the life of the mother is in danger.

CanuckHeaven

13-03-2006, 15:27

Nope - but the sad thing is you *should* be.
Why should I be serious?

Abortion is between a woman, her doctor, and her God.

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 15:47

Noted.

Since then I answered those questions so if you want you can read that.

How are they not reasonable arguments? They should be more than enough to show you how bad abortion is. The fact you're even complaining about them should be enough. Abortion is the method used to achieve results like you see in all those photographs. If you support abortion you support those photographs. Doesn't get any simpler than that.

Don't worry about hurting my feelings. I can only think of one statement in the last 3 years or so that seriously hurt me. Others I just don't take seriously.
Like calling those photos trophies. I take that as a joke. I showed those photos to help you decide whether abortion really is right. If you support abortion you support those photos. I'm sorry, but in all reality that's what it comes down to. So I ask you: do you support abortion and therefore those photos?
I have read your answers. Thank you for getting into the thread at last. You did complain that the questions are "extreme," by which I guess you mean that they don't reflect reality, but you are wrong about that. There are also other inconsistencies among your answers as well as problematical points, which I will address separately. For now, in overview:

The point of the questionnaire (which Nazz did not make up, btw) is to determine whether you grant equal rights to be protected or recompensed for injury to fetuses as you do to born people. In other words, do your really think fetuses are people. You answered "No" to questions 9, 10, 11, 12 and 18, and you gave equivocal answers allowing some instances in which death of a fetus due to actions of another would not be wrong and/or punishable to questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 17.

Apparently, you do not consider fetuses to be human beings with rights equal to those of born people. Your use of the abortion photos may now be seen as dishonestly manipulative as well as a mere shallow shock tactic.

The Nazz

13-03-2006, 16:01

Apparently, you do not consider fetuses to be human beings with rights equal to those of born people. Your use of the abortion photos may now be seen as dishonestly manipulative as well as a mere shallow shock tactic.
Well, the anti-abortion people don't have logic, reason, or consistency on their side, so all they have left is shock. But that shouldn't be surprising, since they obviously don't understand human reproduction much beyond the "storks bring us gifts from Jeebus" stage. If they did, they'd see just how ludicrous their argument is.

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 16:05

<snip>
Don't worry about hurting my feelings. I can only think of one statement in the last 3 years or so that seriously hurt me. Others I just don't take seriously.
Like calling those photos trophies. I take that as a joke. I showed those photos to help you decide whether abortion really is right. If you support abortion you support those photos. I'm sorry, but in all reality that's what it comes down to. So I ask you: do you support abortion and therefore those photos?
The photos are a fact, not an argument. They are not something that can be supported or not supported. There is no point in not supporting them because they obviously exist and the only way not to support a fact is to deny the reality of its existence. I'm not that kind of crazy.

What I do not support is your assertion that these photos mean what you say they mean. First of all, science says you are wrong -- on the facts, as it happens -- and as science provides additional facts to prove that you are wrong, and you don't, I go with science. What is represented in those photos was never a living person. Therefore, no one has been killed, despite what appears to be carnage.

Second, I've said these photos, and the facts they represent, are irrelevant to a woman's right to choose abortion and I meant it. Abortion, just like all surgical procedures, is destructive, and the results of destruction are, by definition, destroyed -- broken, messy, often scary to those not used to looking at them. That fact carries no moral, ethical or even qualitative implication of any kind.

The fact that the results of abortion are messy has no relevance to whether the procedure is necessary.

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 16:07

Honestly... I don't think anybody posting here for more than 3 months would have been able to avoid these pictures or similar ones on a number of occasions. I've lost count how many times people have tried the "omg, look at the poor babies"-approach to prove their point.

Well, sorry I made you go through that if you had already seen it. It is good however to hear others agree with me. Not sure what else to say about that.

The fact that something does not look aesthetically appealing doesn't mean it is wrong or in any way legal. Have you ever seen pictures of an eye-operation? An amputation? Should those be illegal then as well, because they look appaling and disgusting?

I didn't say the lack of aesthetic appeal should make abortion illegal. As you say, an eye operation should be illegal based on that. But there is an enormous difference between an eye operation or amputation and an abortion. It is the content and reason for those photos, not aesthetics and how clean they look, that are important. And because those photos exist due to the slaying of those innocents, the procedure is unjust. The eye operation is just, because the doctors are cutting someone to help them, whereas abortion is to kill them.

Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is that as those thing look like humans, they automatically are human and killing them would be equivalent to murder.

In a way that's a little of what I was saying. By saying that they look like human beings I was drawing a reference to the argument many pro-abortionists use, which is that they're just a "blob of cells," nothing more. Which they're not. So I guess what I'm saying is, if they're not humans, what the heck else are they? Whether or not they're born, they are human beings.

Now, first off, having legs and toes doesn't make a human being. A vast number of animals have the same physical structure, and some of there we actually eat.

When did I say having legs and toes makes them a human being? Let me ask you this: if you have some type of creature naturally developing in a human uterus as a result of reproduction, what would you say that creature is? A spider? A giraffe? I certainly hope not! It is in fact a human. Since it is a human, it should not be legal to kill them. That is the point I was making.

Second, having a body that's roughly shaped like a human body doesn't mean it's a living human being. General consens is that human life begins and ends with measurable brain activity, which, as far as I know, cannot be asserted in embryos until the 12th week. Any abortion before that I would regard as perfectly acceptable, any abortion afterwards should only take place if the life of the mother is in danger.

General consensus? That issue was never really finished, at least in the debates I've had. The definitions I gave there from dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com weren't good enough for others, evn though they clearly show embryos and fetuses to be humans. The people I was debating against proposed using actual medical websites for definitions, which I think is reasonable, but the problem is websites like www.medterms.com avoid the issue. The closest they come to mentioning it is by calling the embryo an organism, which doesn't even help pro-abortionists. So I would agree with you that life can very well end with the end of brain activity, but begin? No. By the very definitions abortionists have shown me I have seen otherwise. So that means any abortion is murder, not just after the brain forms.

I ask you again. Do you agree with abortion and therefore those photos?

Hobbesianland

13-03-2006, 16:19

The point of the questionnaire (which Nazz did not make up, btw) is to determine whether you grant equal rights to be protected or recompensed for injury to fetuses as you do to born people. In other words, do your really think fetuses are people.
This questionnaire is essentially judging whether my view of rights for the fetus concurs with society's view of rights of persons born. In order to substantiate its original claim, it would need to compare my view of fetal rights to my view of rights of persons born. Otherwise, how can it deal with differences in how I view rights questions in general?

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 16:22

This questionnaire is essentially judging whether my view of rights for the fetus concurs with society's view of rights of persons born. In order to substantiate its original claim, it would need to compare my view of fetal rights to my view of rights of persons born. Otherwise, how can it deal with differences in how I view rights questions in general?
You can do that yourself in your answers.

Cabra West

13-03-2006, 16:24

I didn't say the lack of aesthetic appeal should make abortion illegal. As you say, an eye operation should be illegal based on that. But there is an enormous difference between an eye operation or amputation and an abortion. It is the content and reason for those photos, not aesthetics and how clean they look, that are important. And because those photos exist due to the slaying of those innocents, the procedure is unjust. The eye operation is just, because the doctors are cutting someone to help them, whereas abortion is to kill them.

In a way that's a little of what I was saying. By saying that they look like human beings I was drawing a reference to the argument many pro-abortionists use, which is that they're just a "blob of cells," nothing more. Which they're not. So I guess what I'm saying is, if they're not humans, what the heck else are they? Whether or not they're born, they are human beings.

When did I say having legs and toes makes them a human being? Let me ask you this: if you have some type of creature naturally developing in a human uterus as a result of reproduction, what would you say that creature is? A spider? A giraffe? I certainly hope not! It is in fact a human. Since it is a human, it should not be legal to kill them. That is the point I was making.

Would you then oppose a cancer operation for the same reason? A tumor is human tissue, it has it's own unique DNA, it grows, and since it is in fact a mutation, who are we to argue that it is not human life in its own right?
Oops, yes, sorry, I forgot. It doesn't look human....

General consensus? That issue was never really finished, at least in the debates I've had. The definitions I gave there from dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com weren't good enough for others, evn though they clearly show embryos and fetuses to be humans. The people I was debating against proposed using actual medical websites for definitions, which I think is reasonable, but the problem is websites like www.medterms.com avoid the issue. The closest they come to mentioning it is by calling the embryo an organism, which doesn't even help pro-abortionists. So I would agree with you that life can very well end with the end of brain activity, but begin? No. By the very definitions abortionists have shown me I have seen otherwise. So that means any abortion is murder, not just after the brain forms.

I've read a number of articles giving the begining of measurable brain activity as the begining of life. It happens around the 12th week, which is why a good number of countries have used this date in their abortion legislation (normally stating that before week 12 = legal, after week 12 = only in extreme circumstances).
Personally, I wouldn't really agree with them, as to my own personal feeling a foetus shouldn't be entitled to any rights before thay can exists independently of their mother. Until then, they are nothing more than a parasite on the mother's organism.

I ask you again. Do you agree with abortion and therefore those photos?

I thought it was pretty obvious that I do...

Laerod

13-03-2006, 16:28

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 16:37

<snip because I'm jumping in to address specific points>
I didn't say the lack of aesthetic appeal should make abortion illegal. As you say, an eye operation should be illegal based on that. But there is an enormous difference between an eye operation or amputation and an abortion. It is the content and reason for those photos, not aesthetics and how clean they look, that are important. And because those photos exist due to the slaying of those innocents, the procedure is unjust. The eye operation is just, because the doctors are cutting someone to help them, whereas abortion is to kill them.
Or the doctor performs the abortion to help someone -- the woman. She is his patient; his duty is to her.

In a way that's a little of what I was saying. By saying that they look like human beings I was drawing a reference to the argument many pro-abortionists use, which is that they're just a "blob of cells," nothing more. Which they're not. So I guess what I'm saying is, if they're not humans, what the heck else are they? Whether or not they're born, they are human beings.

When did I say having legs and toes makes them a human being? Let me ask you this: if you have some type of creature naturally developing in a human uterus as a result of reproduction, what would you say that creature is? A spider? A giraffe? I certainly hope not! It is in fact a human.
You said it in the paragraph immediately preceding your question.

Since it is a human, it should not be legal to kill them. That is the point I was making.
And yet it is legal to kill humans in many instances, including according to your own example in re Iraqis, when there's a war on. It is also legal to kill a human in order to protect oneself or another. You might argue that war should not be legal, but are you also suggesting that people should not be allowed to defend themselves from physical attack?

The Nazz

13-03-2006, 16:39

I don't want to come across as a rule-monger or something but I'd like to remind you / call to your attention that the use of such graphic pictures (whether of aborted babies or dead Iraqis) is usually treated as a rule violation...
It might have been New Rhodichia I reported from another thread for posting the actual pics. I'm not certain if linking to them is the same (though it is for porn).

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 16:40

I don't want to come across as a rule-monger or something but I'd like to remind you / call to your attention that the use of such graphic pictures (whether of aborted babies or dead Iraqis) is usually treated as a rule violation...
Please, by all means, mong the rules. The less we have of that shock-prop nonsense the better.

Adriatica II

13-03-2006, 16:54

A life sentence?

Its at the discression of the judge

I thought we were talking about murder? Shouldn't it be the relationship between sentencing assassins and those who pay them to kill people?

You misunderstand. I refer to, perhaps more accurately, how we treet those in the law who suply an illegal product/service and how we treet those who use it. The drugs one was an example

How would the store owner know until she either told them or was showing? Are we going to make anyone who has had a positive pregnancy test carry special cards now to let everyone know of their condition? What about making them wear a symbol, such as a "Baby on Board" sticker?

Well if you intend to prevent the baby dying in every possible way then the card idea would be most sensable

Wow, you are seriously going into the idea that all women should be controlled by the state here. What about her eating habits before she finds out she is definitely pregnant? If we really want to protect embryos and fetuses, we're going to have to put *all* women who have gone through puberty and are not either sterilized or past menopause on a strict diet, and make sure they adhere to it.

Her eating habbits before she knows she's pregnant is far too far. The legal system (at least in the UK) has regard for knowledge of case. IE if you purchase stolen goods but you were not aware they were stolen and that can be proven, then you cannot be charge with handling stolen goods with intent (which is the crime's full title)

No, but if we're all about protecting embryos/fetuses, she should have been forcibly sterilized so that she coudn't get pregnant at all, right? Just like how the government is going to control her diet and habits 24/7 to protect her possible pregnancies.

If she absolutely cannot have a child and the only result of becoming pregnant would certianly be the childs death then yes, perhaps such a policy should be considerd. However I am not yet aware of any such medical condition.

The question was *should*, not *would*. Do you think that a company who has a faulty product that results in the destruction of 1000 embryos should be charged with mass murder, or at the least negligent homicide of 1000 people?

I answered that question later. No they shouldnt because as of yet there is no coperate killing act. However if there was, they should. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth before I have finished my sentence

It isn't. But if she goes through chemo, she knows it will likely end her pregnancy. Thus, by all of your logic, she shouldn't be allowed to have chemo.

No. It is not her fault she has the Cancer. If she does not have the treatement, then both her and the feotus would die. If she has the treatment, the feotus may die and she would live.

Cabra West

13-03-2006, 16:57

No. It is not her fault she has the Cancer. If she does not have the treatement, then both her and the feotus would die. If she has the treatment, the feotus may die and she would live.

Acutally, unless it's really the final stages of cancer, she would survive the 9 month pregnancy without chemotherapy, I should think... only she mightn't live long afterwards.

Adriatica II

13-03-2006, 16:57

To me, that's just plain stupid. I tend to lean toward the more practical: there really is no other way to decide if abortion is appropriate than to place the decision squarely where it belongs ... on the one who is pregnant.

I can see no reason why the mother would have any more idea of when it becomes alive than anyone else. Frankly the far more practical position would be the "if in doubt, dont" simply because the consequences of being wrong and they are alive are far worse than if they are not.

Laerod

13-03-2006, 17:00

The Nazz

13-03-2006, 17:02

I can see no reason why the mother would have any more idea of when it becomes alive than anyone else. Frankly the far more practical position would be the "if in doubt, dont" simply because the consequences of being wrong and they are alive are far worse than if they are not.
Eutrusca's point--and mine too, for that matter--is that when the cells cross some unknowable threshhold into "living" is irrelevant. The woman carrying that lump is the sovereign of her own body--or should be anyway.

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 17:03

I can see no reason why the mother would have any more idea of when it becomes alive than anyone else. Frankly the far more practical position would be the "if in doubt, dont" simply because the consequences of being wrong and they are alive are far worse than if they are not.
"Worse" is an opinion word, and it depends entirely on your philosophy of life and death.

Perhaps the formula should be "if in doubt, don't presume" and maybe it should apply to you as well as women and doctors.

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 17:11

<snip>
No. It is not her fault she has the Cancer. If she does not have the treatement, then both her and the feotus would die. If she has the treatment, the feotus may die and she would live.
I find it interesting that you use the word "fault." You are one of those people who believe pregnancy is a punishment for some presumed deliberate wrong-doing on the part of the woman? If her situation is not her "fault" she's allowed to kill her baby? Tell me, what "fault" precisely should be punished by mandatory pregnancy and what non-faults negate that fault and let her avoid that punishment?

The Nazz

13-03-2006, 17:16

I find it interesting that you use the word "fault." You are one of those people who believe pregnancy is a punishment for some presumed deliberate wrong-doing on the part of the woman? If her situation is not her "fault" she's allowed to kill her baby? Tell me, what "fault" precisely should be punished by mandatory pregnancy and what non-faults negate that fault and let her avoid that punishment?
The only good thing that the South Dakota law has done for the abortion debate is that it's gotten the real issue--control of who has sex and under what conditions--out there in the open for all to see. This debate isn't about the fetus--it's about who controls the pussy.

Frangland

13-03-2006, 17:21

i really dont understand why the prolife radicals arent trying to shut down fertility clinics completely

at least with abortion clinics, women are aborting unwanted and unintended pregnancies. a fertility clinic is set up to kill hundreds of embryos by creating, and sometimes implanting, many more than will ever be given a chance to become a baby.

that they DONT indicates to me that they are only interested in punishing women for having sex.

Devil's advocate:

...or for their total disregard for human life.

if it's not human, then what is it?

If we rationalize it away as okay to kill something:

a)With human DNA
b)That's growing into what will become a fully functioning human
c)That was created by humans
d)That we all were at one time

...well something tells me God won't think it's okay. But then, God judges us all and everything we do, so we'll find out when we die.

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 17:22

The only good thing that the South Dakota law has done for the abortion debate is that it's gotten the real issue--control of who has sex and under what conditions--out there in the open for all to see. This debate isn't about the fetus--it's about who controls the pussy.
Absolutely. And the most ridiculous part is they think their constant blathering with irrelevant pseudo-science and shock-propaganda will distract us from the issue of our own rights.

Refused Party Program

13-03-2006, 17:23

...well something tells me God won't think it's okay. But then, God judges us all and everything we do, so we'll find out when we die.

Luckily God doesn't exist so we don't have care what he thinks. Unless you have him on the phone and he wants to get a word in?

Frangland

13-03-2006, 17:23

Absolutely. And the most ridiculous part is they think their constant blathering with irrelevant pseudo-science and shock-propaganda will distract us from the issue of our own rights.

DA:

you're right, how dare anything get between you and your right to murder your own would-be child.

Dempublicents1

13-03-2006, 17:24

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?
If she starts smoking during the pregnancy, she is excuseless and should be punished. If not, it is an addiction and there's not always something she can do about it, as sad as it is.

People stop smoking all the time.

Meanwhile, this is evidence that you don't really consider the embryo/fetus to be a human person with the same value as a born human being. Otherwise, any conduct that led to the death of such a being, so long as anyone might think it might cause harm, would be manslaughter at the least.

6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?
Not really. As a couple they're merely trying to have a baby, and the fact that the woman is a smoker is obviously a risk, but it's not like he's trying to kill the baby or something.

If I regularly do something that might harm/kill a human being, and someone else knows about it - they are bound by law to report it or be charged as an accessory. Once again, you obviously don't think the embryo/fetus carries the same value as a born human being.

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?
No! She does not want the baby to die, she merely wants a baby and gets pregnant so she can have one. That's all.

So you think it is ok to try and bring a child into this world if it has an incredibly high percentage chance of dying? What would you say if I told you I wanted something, but to try and get it would most likely result in the death of a born human being? Would you tell me to go for it?

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?
Ummmm... no. Like it's really their fault the fire started, even if it's their product. Is this really one of your top 20 questions?

You do realize that if an actual human being dies as the result of a faulty product, the makers of that product can be sued for, at the least, criminal negligence and wrongful death? But you don't think that 1500 embryos being destroyed would be either?

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?
If the embryos die or develop a disability, it is the person's fault. If they're fine, it doesn't matter.
18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?
No- they don't depend on you. They depend on cold temperatures and the mahcine or whatever feeding them. If it's not a machine feeding them, I still say no because your job would be to feed them. Not your personal responsibility.

If you want to discuss these issues, you might want to do some research. Frozen embryos are *frozen*. They are not fed - they are not growing. They are as good as dead until you thaw them out. Leaving an embryo in storage for a long period of time may increase the chances of certain defects - it might not. But they cannot develop a defect or "die" while in storage.

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?
I think you all would know my answer to this. Just in case you don't I would say that removal would mean death for the fetus and you know it, so obviously I would object. She should be punished for whatever she does however (and the level of punishment would depend on what she does)

Should they incarcerate her and control her body until she gives birth?

If this is your strongest set of questions you're out of luck, because it's not fair to say I'm wrong about what I believe if I don't give the answers you want.

It's not about wanting certain answers - but about looking for logical consistency within the answers. There is none in yours, unless you are willing to admit that the embryo/fetus is not a human person entitled to the protections that go along with it.

These are all extreme questions as you know, and not all of them can be answered with yes's by the average pro-life person. Even ones with reason, as I did my best to show.

Of course they can't all be answered with yes by the average pro-life person, because such a person rarely, if ever, has a logically consistent viewpoint on the matter.

I didn't say the lack of aesthetic appeal should make abortion illegal.

Actually, that's pretty much exactly what you said. "Look at this! Isn't this awful!? Obviously abortion = teh sux!"

The eye operation is just, because the doctors are cutting someone to help them, whereas abortion is to kill them.

An abortion might be done to help someone - the mother.

In a way that's a little of what I was saying. By saying that they look like human beings I was drawing a reference to the argument many pro-abortionists use, which is that they're just a "blob of cells," nothing more. Which they're not.

They are throughout much of the embryonic stage. A blastocyst is literally a ball of cells. As the embryo develops, it gains more and more definition. But you don't ever see the anti-choice crowd bringing up pictures of blastocysts or other forms in early embryos, do you? I wonder why that is? Could it possibly be because their points don't stand alone without trying to drive an emotional, rather than a logical response?

http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/day5blasts222txt.jpg

There's a blastocyst. This is what much of the anti-choice crowd whines about when they want to ban stem cell research.

See? I can use pictures too! Of course, what it looks like has nothing to do with anything. One can value a blastocyst even though it doesn't look like a human being.

The closest they come to mentioning it is by calling the embryo an organism, which doesn't even help pro-abortionists. So I would agree with you that life can very well end with the end of brain activity, but begin? No. By the very definitions abortionists have shown me I have seen otherwise. So that means any abortion is murder, not just after the brain forms.

Where are all these imaginary "pro-abortionists"? How many "abortionists" have you spoken to?

Its at the discression of the judge

The questions ask for *your* opinion. Therefore, do you think she should get a life sentence or not?

You misunderstand. I refer to, perhaps more accurately, how we treet those in the law who suply an illegal product/service and how we treet those who use it. The drugs one was an example

So abortion isn't murder then? It is just a product/service?

Well if you intend to prevent the baby dying in every possible way then the card idea would be most sensable

Papers, comrade?

Her eating habbits before she knows she's pregnant is far too far.

Then you obviously do not actually care about all embryos, considering that the embryo exists for weeks before the woman knows about it - and her habits can cause it harm during this time.

You obviously don't consider the embryo to be deserving of the rights of a born human being, because such behavior would be manslaughter if it involved a born human being.

The legal system (at least in the UK) has regard for knowledge of case. IE if you purchase stolen goods but you were not aware they were stolen and that can be proven, then you cannot be charge with handling stolen goods with intent (which is the crime's full title)

You have to compare apples to apples here. You can be charged with manslaughter whether you knew the person was there or not, so long as a reasonable person would know that their actions might harm a human being. A woman who is sexually active knows she might be pregnant at any time -and that her living habits could possibly harm an embryo/fetus if she was.

If she absolutely cannot have a child and the only result of becoming pregnant would certianly be the childs death then yes, perhaps such a policy should be considerd. However I am not yet aware of any such medical condition.

So if it is only 90% certain that the embryo/fetus might not make it, that's ok then?

I answered that question later. No they shouldnt because as of yet there is no coperate killing act. However if there was, they should. Kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth before I have finished my sentence

Opinions are not dependent on current law. Do you think there should be such an act?

No. It is not her fault she has the Cancer. If she does not have the treatement, then both her and the feotus would die. If she has the treatment, the feotus may die and she would live.

If she does not have the treatment, they might both live. If she does not have the treatment, she might die and the fetus might live.

There are all sorts of possibilities here. Women have forgone chemo because they wanted to finish their pregnancies first and have survived - and have given live birth. Do you really think she should be able to make a medical choice almost guarranteed to kill the fetus?

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 17:25

Devil's advocate:

...or for their total disregard for human life.

if it's not human, then what is it?

If we rationalize it away as okay to kill something:

a)With human DNA
b)That's growing into what will become a fully functioning human
c)That was created by humans

...well something tells me God won't think it's okay. But then, God judges us all and everything we do, so we'll find out when we die.
Does something also tell you that not everyone believes in the same god you do and that even among people who do believe in that god, not everyone agrees with your assessment of his thoughts, and maybe that's why so many resist the attempts of the anti-choice movement to make law out of their assumptions about what their god wants?

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 17:26

DA:

you're right, how dare anything get between you and your right to murder your own would-be child.
Thanks for agreeing.

Frangland

13-03-2006, 17:33

Luckily God doesn't exist so we don't have care what he thinks. Unless you have him on the phone and he wants to get a word in?

you'd better hope He doesn't exist...

Refused Party Program

13-03-2006, 17:33

you'd better hope He doesn't exist...

Did he tell you to tell me that? Tell him I said, "up yours!"

Frangland

13-03-2006, 17:33

Thanks for agreeing.

hehe

i'm playing devil's advocate against the pro-choice lovefest going on in here.

Frangland

13-03-2006, 17:35

Did he tell you to tell me that? Tell him I said, "up yours!"

okay, i will. he'll wait for your belief when you're on your death bed. why would anyone want to take the chance of not believing.

consider:
if there is no God, then none of our beliefs will matter

but if there is...

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 17:38

<snip -- yes, I am going back to an old post because there's another point I want to make in response to it.)
I didn't say the lack of aesthetic appeal should make abortion illegal. As you say, an eye operation should be illegal based on that. But there is an enormous difference between an eye operation or amputation and an abortion. It is the content and reason for those photos, not aesthetics and how clean they look, that are important. And because those photos exist due to the slaying of those innocents, the procedure is unjust. The eye operation is just, because the doctors are cutting someone to help them, whereas abortion is to kill them.
<snip>

More opinion words: "slaying," "innocents," "unjust," [the point of] "abortion is to kill them"

All of these words/phrases are emotional triggers that do not carry any factual information. They serve only to tinge what you are talking about with a negative characterization. They are propaganda, pure and simple.

Also, the point of abortion is not to kill a person. It is to help a person -- the woman who is the doctor's patient. You have yet to reconcile your own conflict over the competing right to life between fetus and woman. In the face of that conflict, your use of such propaganda language becomes even more obviously meaningless.

Lazy Otakus

13-03-2006, 17:39

okay, i will. he'll wait for your belief when you're on your death bed. why would anyone want to take the chance of not believing.

consider:
if there is no God, then none of our beliefs will matter

but if there is...

Oh no! Pascal's Wager Alert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager)!

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 17:41

hehe

i'm playing devil's advocate against the pro-choice lovefest going on in here.
Well, if you enjoy taking beatings you haven't earned... :p

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 17:42

okay, i will. he'll wait for your belief when you're on your death bed. why would anyone want to take the chance of not believing.

consider:
if there is no God, then none of our beliefs will matter

but if there is...
They still don't matter -- today. We'll know when we die, like you said, but we won't know until then, and we can't make decisions based on information we don't have.

The Nazz

13-03-2006, 17:54

okay, i will. he'll wait for your belief when you're on your death bed. why would anyone want to take the chance of not believing.

consider:
if there is no God, then none of our beliefs will matter

but if there is...
Then I'll take comfort in knowing that while I may not be more powerful than He is, I'm at least more moral than He is.

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 19:50

People stop smoking all the time.

With all due respect I'd have to start in order to stop.

Meanwhile, this is evidence that you don't really consider the embryo/fetus to be a human person with the same value as a born human being. Otherwise, any conduct that led to the death of such a being, so long as anyone might think it might cause harm, would be manslaughter at the least.

As I said, there's not always something she can do. Should she be punished? Sure. I'll give you that. But not a full-on manslaughter charge. Unless, as I said, she starts smoking during the pregnancy.

If I regularly do something that might harm/kill a human being, and someone else knows about it - they are bound by law to report it or be charged as an accessory. Once again, you obviously don't think the embryo/fetus carries the same value as a born human being.

As I said, the couple is merely trying to have a healthy baby. There's nothing to accuse him of. The wife smoking is not a murder attempt (or if she is smoking to harm the baby, that's when they should be punished). Knowing she smokes doesn't make him a criminal. If trying to have the baby was a crime I would agree with you, but it's not.

So you think it is ok to try and bring a child into this world if it has an incredibly high percentage chance of dying? What would you say if I told you I wanted something, but to try and get it would most likely result in the death of a born human being? Would you tell me to go for it?

No I wouldn't. But that's not what we're talking about. The couple would be doing their best to bring a healthy baby into the world.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

You do realize that if an actual human being dies as the result of a faulty product, the makers of that product can be sued for, at the least, criminal negligence and wrongful death? But you don't think that 1500 embryos being destroyed would be either?

On that note I'm changing my mind (watches as others gasp in astonishment). On second thought I would agree they can be sued. That much makes sense.

If you want to discuss these issues, you might want to do some research. Frozen embryos are *frozen*. They are not fed - they are not growing. They are as good as dead until you thaw them out. Leaving an embryo in storage for a long period of time may increase the chances of certain defects - it might not. But they cannot develop a defect or "die" while in storage.

My mistake. I was not knowledgable about the storage issue. However, with this newfound knowledge you have given me, I can say right out that you're not helping yourself. They rely on cold temperatures, and apparently nothing more. They have nothing to do with the tax deductions. That much seems logical to me.

Should they incarcerate her and control her body until she gives birth?

Ummmm... no. That would be just as wrong as killing the baby.

It's not about wanting certain answers - but about looking for logical consistency within the answers. There is none in yours, unless you are willing to admit that the embryo/fetus is not a human person entitled to the protections that go along with it.

I fail to see where my answers were illogical. I gave reasons for everything I said.

Of course they can't all be answered with yes by the average pro-life person, because such a person rarely, if ever, has a logically consistent viewpoint on the matter.

You're saying because I didn't say yes for everything my answers are flawed in terms of their logical sense. Isn't that a logical flaw in itself since I gave reasons for each and every answer?

Actually, that's pretty much exactly what you said. "Look at this! Isn't this awful!? Obviously abortion = teh sux!"

The main issue wasn't "aesthetics," just as I said. You gotta include the next part of what I said.

An abortion might be done to help someone - the mother.

That cause is agreeable. However, what's the difference between the choice Scott Peterson made to kill his unborn son and the choice of any pregnant woman? Who cares whose body the baby is in? It is the same choice.
If you don't like that example, I would say choice at the expense of another's life is no right choice at all (there are exceptions, like self-defense and all that, but overall it's not right to murder someone)

They are throughout much of the embryonic stage. A blastocyst is literally a ball of cells. As the embryo develops, it gains more and more definition. But you don't ever see the anti-choice crowd bringing up pictures of blastocysts or other forms in early embryos, do you? I wonder why that is? Could it possibly be because their points don't stand alone without trying to drive an emotional, rather than a logical response?

Ok. First I'll mention the fetuses. Most of the ones I showed links to were those in the first trimester. What about those? You didn't talk about those at all.
Next, the blastocysts. I concur they don't look human. But again, what are they if not a human just starting development?
Please don't give the cancer example. I grow tired of hearing it. Cancer is a disease- cells grow rapidly and can eventually kill the sufferer. There is an immense difference between rapidly growing clumps of cells due to disease and rapidly growing "clumps of cells" due to reproduction. Cancer cells are human, but not human beings. And as was agreed upon in the South Dakota thread, there is a difference.

See? I can use pictures too! Of course, what it looks like has nothing to do with anything. One can value a blastocyst even though it doesn't look like a human being.

Yes one can.

Where are all these imaginary "pro-abortionists"? How many "abortionists" have you spoken to?

I have talked to plenty of pro-abortionists. For proof see the South Dakota thread. And I doubt they would like being called imaginary. I posted from page 39 on to probably the mid-60's. The 60's are where I think the said discussions of definitions are.

Then you obviously do not actually care about all embryos, considering that the embryo exists for weeks before the woman knows about it - and her habits can cause it harm during this time.

I would agree not knowing about it isn't valid. Ignorance of a pregnancy is no excuse for behavior harmful to the fetus, just as ignorance of the law is no valid excuse.

So if it is only 90% certain that the embryo/fetus might not make it, that's ok then?
I don't see what's wrong with merely trying to produce a healthy baby, no matter what the odds are. Do you?

Opinions are not dependent on current law. Do you think there should be such an act?

Oh, come off it. Of course not.

There are all sorts of possibilities here. Women have forgone chemo because they wanted to finish their pregnancies first and have survived - and have given live birth. Do you really think she should be able to make a medical choice almost guarranteed to kill the fetus?

If she is pretty much guaranteed survival, for no reason should she take chemo. If not, it's either kill the fetus or kill the fetus and let the mother die. Now if the fetus might live even if the mother dies, I'm guessing that's because it's extracted and developed outside the womb. If that's the case, then in life or death situations the fetus should be extracted so the mother can have chemo. I do not have a problem with extracting a fetus. It is killing them that I have a problem with.

Ruloah

13-03-2006, 19:55

First of all, these questions are tough to answer even when dealing with a woman and infant living next door. Witness people's ambivalence about reporting what appears to be child abuse or neglect.

Inconsistency in answering just indicates the difficult nature of these questions. Inconsistency =|= hypocrisy.

And legally speaking, there are different levels of killing, with different penalties or sometimes no penalty, depending on the circumstances of the individual crime. A woman killed as a result of involuntary manslaughter is just as dead as the one killed by negligent homicide or first degree murder, but the perpetrator may receive differing sentences based upon the specifics of the crime. Is that inconsistent? From the point of view of the person who created the abortion questionnaire below, perhaps...

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?perhaps, depending on the circumstances---for example, did she wait until just before the due date to get the abortion? Or did she have the abortion to avoid giving birth to a mixed race baby?

2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder? did he try to stop her or did he drive her to the clinic and whip out his credit card to pay for it?

3) How about her friends who know?what about friends who overhear you saying "I wish so-and-so would die, I would be glad to make that happen"?

4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty? in accordance with the law outlawing abortion, they should receive the mandated penalty. If I get to decide, then life in prison

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder? I don't believe in criminalizing smoking under any circumstances, although I am not a smoker, and could not indulge without causing my own death. So, no.

6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?same as above

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide? never heard of this happening, but if it were possible, and the autopsy showed that it was the woman's eating habits, then charge her with some kind of fatal child abuse.

8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged? only if he aided and abetted with intent to kill the baby.

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies? did she try to prevent pregnancy? did her birth control fail? was there a sterilization failure? maybe the pharmaceutical company or the operating surgeon (sterilization surgery) should be liable.

10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?
assuming that he deliberately tried to get her pregnant, to force her to try to carry his baby to term, yes.

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?
since the same company with the same product and the same fire would not be liable for mass murder if the building I work in were burnt down, no.

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder?why would we allow clinics to freeze babies in the first place?

13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse? depends on what she is smoking. If it is an illegal substance, then yes, report her to law enforcement, not to the child abuse agency (see my answer to #19)

14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?no, this is a choice between saving one life or another. The question here is, whose life do we hold more dear, the mother or the child?

15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder? not for trying to save the life of his patient, the mother.

16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?in the USA, anyone can sue anyone for anything. Not having access to the appropriate legal database, I would assume that suits of this type have been brought in the past, and may have been successful...

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?once again, why would we allow babies to be frozen in the first place? We don't allow adults to be frozen until after death.

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?if we decided to allow the freezing of babies, then they would not be dependents until born.

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?I do not trust the government agencies dealing with the welfare of children. Their hidden mandate seems to be to cause the horrific death of any child that crosses their path, keeping children truly in danger with abusive and/or homicidal parents, and removing children only when there is no danger at all. So I am against a government agency being involved at all.

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death? is that really how many women have had or will have abortions in their lives? I thought that was the statistic on how many women would be raped in their lifetimes.

The Alma Mater

13-03-2006, 19:58

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death? is that really how many women have had or will have abortions in their lives? I thought that was the statistic on how many women would be raped in their lifetimes.

If you count naturally occuring abortions, the percentage will approach 100 for all sexually active females.

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 20:03

If you count naturally occuring abortions, the percentage will approach 100 for all sexually active females.
Natural deaths of fetuses aren't really abortions. The fetus ceases to live because of disease, complications, or whatever, not because the mother aborts it.

Ruloah

13-03-2006, 20:06

If you count naturally occuring abortions, the percentage will approach 100 for all sexually active females.

Naturally occuring abortions=naturally occurring homicides.

You mean miscarriages right? And most of those the woman may not even be aware of either the pregnancy or the miscarriage.

Miscarriages are normally a good thing, because they stop a deformed child from being carried to term. Still, it can be a traumatic event. My wife had one while working for an evil employer who would not allow her to take the rest of the day off. :mad:

The Alma Mater

13-03-2006, 20:08

Natural deaths of fetuses aren't really abortions. The fetus ceases to live because of disease, complications, or whatever, not because the mother aborts it.

Actually I was referring to the female body rejecting the fertilised egg, getting rid of it during the next menstrual cycle. This happens in over 60% of all pregnancies; which means that it will happen to almost every woman who is sexually active (assuming she has sex more than once).
This happens well before the fetus stage, but after fertilisation btw.

Ashmoria

13-03-2006, 20:10

Devil's advocate:

...or for their total disregard for human life.

if it's not human, then what is it?

If we rationalize it away as okay to kill something:

a)With human DNA
b)That's growing into what will become a fully functioning human
c)That was created by humans
d)That we all were at one time

...well something tells me God won't think it's okay. But then, God judges us all and everything we do, so we'll find out when we die.
hey, GOD set up a system where somewhere from a quarter to a half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant and where many implanted embryos spontaneously abort

if he doesnt like it, maybe he should look to the beam in his own eye.

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 20:10

Naturally occuring abortions=naturally occurring homicides.

You mean miscarriages right? And most of those the woman may not even be aware of either the pregnancy or the miscarriage.

Miscarriages are normally a good thing, because they stop a deformed child from being carried to term. Still, it can be a traumatic event.
Traumatic, yes but how are they homocides? To my understanding a death isn't a homocide unless a person kills a person.
My wife had one while working for an evil employer who would not allow her to take the rest of the day off. :mad:
I'm sorry that happened.

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 20:45

Traumatic, yes but how are they homocides? To my understanding a death isn't a homocide unless a person kills a person.

It's not homicide if a person kills a person during a battle in a war, or in self defense/defense of another, or if the death results from you not doing something you are not legally required to do (like donating an organ), or if the death results from an action of yours but you didn't do it with the intention of killing the person or with knowledge that what you were doing had a high probability of killing someone (the difference between manslaughter and homicide).

(PS: I'm still working on my responses to your questionnaire answers.)

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 20:54

It's not homicide if a person kills a person during a battle in a war, or in self defense/defense of another, or if the death results from you not doing something you are not legally required to do (like donating an organ), or if the death results from an action of yours but you didn't do it with the intention of killing the person or with knowledge that what you were doing had a high probability of killing someone (the difference between manslaughter and homicide).

(PS: I'm still working on my responses to your questionnaire answers.)
Homicide is defined as a person being killed by another person. Whether it's legal totally depends on where you live and what the situation is, but killing someone in self-defense is still homicide. Killing someone during war is still homicide. It's just that they're justified by law (at least in the U.S.).

Cabra West

13-03-2006, 20:55

Homocide is defined as a person being killed by another person. Whether it's legal totally depends on where you live and what the situation is, but killing someone in self-defense is still homocide. Killing someone during war is still homocide. It's just that they're justified by law.

Well, guess what. So is abortion in many countries...

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 20:57

Well, guess what. So is abortion in many countries...
I know that. That doesn't make it right though.

Cabra West

13-03-2006, 21:00

I know that. That doesn't make it right though.

That's your personal values, you can think about it whatever you like. Claiming that it's murder, though, is simply not true as murder is illegal killing of a human person.

New Rhodichia

13-03-2006, 21:05

That's your personal values, you can think about it whatever you like. Claiming that it's murder, though, is simply not true as murder is illegal killing of a human person.
Good point. I guess my goal then is to show that it should be illegal, not to say it is murder. Cuz you're right, right now it's not technically murder.

Intangelon

13-03-2006, 21:09

A much better one would be 'Should women who use the pill or and IUD be given a life sentence/sentenced to death?'.

The pill and IUDs work by preventing a fertilised egg from implanting so if we define fertilisation of the egg as the beginning of life then clearly they are killing the foetus.
Not only that, but the majority of fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus on their own with no contraceptive interference. So what that means is that pro-lifers effectively believe that any sexually active woman who's had more than one period is a serial killer. They're not pro-life, they're anti-woman.

That said, abortion should not be birth control. Then again, no uterus, no opinion.

Ruloah

13-03-2006, 21:12

Traumatic, yes but how are they homocides? To my understanding a death isn't a homocide unless a person kills a person.

Thanx for the sympathy. If my wife were only a typical litigating American, we would (unfortunately) be rich.

Sorry about my sarcasm not being more visible when comparing miscarriages to homicide.

No, miscarriages are not homicide, nor are they naturally occurring abortions. Abortion is an intentional act, not a natural rejection of a malformed nascent being.

Intangelon

13-03-2006, 21:13

i really dont understand why the prolife radicals arent trying to shut down fertility clinics completely

at least with abortion clinics, women are aborting unwanted and unintended pregnancies. a fertility clinic is set up to kill hundreds of embryos by creating, and sometimes implanting, many more than will ever be given a chance to become a baby.

that they DONT indicates to me that they are only interested in punishing women for having sex.
BINGO.

And isn't it against God's Will to make oneself technologically fertile when God's plan was clearly sterility (essentially, "playing God")? Seems to me that at the very least, God's Will is subject to interpretation.

Cabra West

13-03-2006, 21:25

Good point. I guess my goal then is to show that it should be illegal, not to say it is murder. Cuz you're right, right now it's not technically murder.

A few images are hardly ground for a change in legislation, though...

Intangelon

13-03-2006, 21:26

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?

No. For the simple reason it is not her fault. She should only be proscuted if the death of the fetus was somehow directly her fault. Its not her fault for having the condition.

Wait a minute -- the rest of your answers seem to imply that any remotely fertile woman should be under surveillance for smoking and diet (I'd assume alcohol as well, but oddly, you made no mention of it) -- how is it NOT her fault of she KNOWS her condition results in a 95% miscarriage rate (that will, I trust, suffice as a legitimate rate to represent the original "almost always")?

Wouldn't you say that someone with a 95% chance of dying from a peanut allergy who KNOWINGLY eats peanuts is effectively attempting suicide?

Looks like you're the one who wants it both ways.

Intangelon

13-03-2006, 21:33

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder? YES

Only if the power failure was due to human error. However, it the power went out as an act of God............

That is just plain brilliant. Absolutely well said, CH.

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 21:35

Homicide is defined as a person being killed by another person. Whether it's legal totally depends on where you live and what the situation is, but killing someone in self-defense is still homicide. Killing someone during war is still homicide. It's just that they're justified by law (at least in the U.S.).
Sorry, you're wrong. "Homicide" is a legal term that defines a very specific type of crime. The term has no application outside the law. Any killing that is justified by the law is not a homicide. Only killings that are (A) deliberate and (B) not justified by the law are homicides. There is no circumstance under which homicide is not a crime, but there are lots of circumstances under which a person killing another person is not a crime.

EDIT: For instance, you never answered my question about whether a person should be allowed to kill another person if they have to do it to avoid being killed themselves. What do you think?

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 21:42

Good point. I guess my goal then is to show that it should be illegal, not to say it is murder. Cuz you're right, right now it's not technically murder.
How do you plan to do that?

Muravyets

13-03-2006, 21:55

<snip> I am never moved my mawkish and meldramatic displays of false piety and self-righteousness.
Fabulous sentence! May I put that on a greeting card? :D

Intangelon

13-03-2006, 22:01

Intangelon

13-03-2006, 22:02

Fabulous sentence! May I put that on a greeting card? :D
But of course! You honor me! Thanks.

Beetalia

13-03-2006, 22:16

This God these people speak of- Is this the same god who thought it was perfectly
OK to murder the first born child in Egypt, just to make a point? And he cares about the innocent? Doesn't sound like the sort of God I would wish to follow.

Dempublicents1

13-03-2006, 22:22

With all due respect I'd have to start in order to stop.

I wasn't saying *you* smoke, just that those who do can stop. What if the woman were instead addicted to heroin. Would you say, "Oh well, she's got an addiction, guess it's not her fault if it means someone dies." What about crack? What about alcohol.

As I said, there's not always something she can do. Should she be punished? Sure. I'll give you that. But not a full-on manslaughter charge. Unless, as I said, she starts smoking during the pregnancy.

There is always something she can do.

As I said, the couple is merely trying to have a healthy baby. There's nothing to accuse him of. The wife smoking is not a murder attempt (or if she is smoking to harm the baby, that's when they should be punished). Knowing she smokes doesn't make him a criminal. If trying to have the baby was a crime I would agree with you, but it's not.

It doesn't have to be a murder attempt. It fully and completely meets the definition of manslaughter. And if I know you are doing something dangerous enough to get you charged with manslaughter and don't report it, I will be charged as an accessory.

No I wouldn't. But that's not what we're talking about.

Yes, it is. Reread the question.

The couple would be doing their best to bring a healthy baby into the world.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

There is if it is virtually impossible for them to do so and you believe the embryo/fetus to be a human being with all the rights therein.

On that note I'm changing my mind (watches as others gasp in astonishment). On second thought I would agree they can be sued. That much makes sense.

For what? Wrongful death? Or simply criminal negligence?

My mistake. I was not knowledgable about the storage issue. However, with this newfound knowledge you have given me, I can say right out that you're not helping yourself. They rely on cold temperatures, and apparently nothing more. They have nothing to do with the tax deductions. That much seems logical to me.

The tax deductions apply to all children. Anyone who has custody of a child can take the tax breaks. If you do not think the tax breaks should be given, you do not think the embryo/fetus is a child.

Ummmm... no. That would be just as wrong as killing the baby.

If I were hitting you over and over again and you might die from it, would incarcerating me be "just as wrong as killing" you?

I fail to see where my answers were illogical. I gave reasons for everything I said.

Reasons are not equivalent to logical. Your answers are illogical because they are inconsistent. At one moment you are claiming that the embryo/fetus is a full human being with all the rights therein. In the next, you make excuses for why we shouldn't actually treat them the same as such a human being.

You're saying because I didn't say yes for everything my answers are flawed in terms of their logical sense. Isn't that a logical flaw in itself since I gave reasons for each and every answer?

Giving reasons is irrelevant. You have to have internal consistency. You do not.

That cause is agreeable. However, what's the difference between the choice Scott Peterson made to kill his unborn son and the choice of any pregnant woman? Who cares whose body the baby is in? It is the same choice.

For one thing, there is no choice to kill the unborn. There is simply the choice to end a pregnancy - to end the condition of the mother. The result is that the embryo/fetus, if it is alive at this point, dies.

The other difference would be that Peterson did it in the 3rd trimester when the fetus was viable - well after elective abortions are allowed.

Ok. First I'll mention the fetuses. Most of the ones I showed links to were those in the first trimester. What about those? You didn't talk about those at all.

It is irrelevant. They have little arms and legs and they look disturbing because they remind us of ourselves. Of course, we must also remember that they can't feel anything, as they don't even have the wiring to do so. They have no consciousness - probably no brain at all even. The pictures look gruesome, but without more than, "Look at these gruesome pictures!" you have nothing.

I have talked to plenty of pro-abortionists. For proof see the South Dakota thread. And I doubt they would like being called imaginary. I posted from page 39 on to probably the mid-60's. The 60's are where I think the said discussions of definitions are.

I was in that thread. I was talking to you. I didn't see any pro-abortionists, save maybe one. I saw many who were pro-choice, quite a few of whom expressed distaste with abortion in general.

I would agree not knowing about it isn't valid. Ignorance of a pregnancy is no excuse for behavior harmful to the fetus, just as ignorance of the law is no valid excuse.

So you would prosecute a woman who had a miscarriage due to her own bad habits for manslaughter, even if she never knew she was pregnant until she miscarried?

I don't see what's wrong with merely trying to produce a healthy baby, no matter what the odds are. Do you?

Yes. If the odds are high that the child will be born with gross chromosomal defects, then the parents should adopt.

And, if you actually viewed the embryo/fetus as a human being - you wouldn't want people creating them with a huge chance that they would just die. Maybe said parents should adopt as well.

Oh, come off it. Of course not.

You don't think corporations should be held responsible if their negligence kills someone?

If she is pretty much guaranteed survival, for no reason should she take chemo. If not, it's either kill the fetus or kill the fetus and let the mother die.

You left a possibility out - let the mother die and save the fetus. It isn't as unusual as you might think - quite a few women have chosen to forgo chemo, even though their cancer was aggressive, until after birth. Often, they have died. But the baby had been brought into the world.

Dempublicents1

13-03-2006, 22:31

Inconsistency in answering just indicates the difficult nature of these questions. Inconsistency =|= hypocrisy.

Inconsistency does mean that you don't actually believe what you say you do - that an embryo/fetus should receive all the rights of a human being.

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder? I don't believe in criminalizing smoking under any circumstances, although I am not a smoker, and could not indulge without causing my own death. So, no.

Ok, so you've basically just said, "It's perfectly ok to kill someone for no reason, as long as you did it by cigarrette smoke."

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide? never heard of this happening, but if it were possible, and the autopsy showed that it was the woman's eating habits, then charge her with some kind of fatal child abuse.

Wait, so if a woman doesn't eat the right food, she can be charged with child abuse, but if she smokes, she can't? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?
since the same company with the same product and the same fire would not be liable for mass murder if the building I work in were burnt down, no.

No, but they would be liable for wrongful death in each case of death. Would the company in this case be liable for 1500 deaths?

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder?why would we allow clinics to freeze babies in the first place?

Look up "in vitro fertilization."

Naturally occuring abortions=naturally occurring homicides.

But they could possibly be manslaughters, if we count the embryo/fetus as a person.

Miscarriages are normally a good thing, because they stop a deformed child from being carried to term. Still, it can be a traumatic event. My wife had one while working for an evil employer who would not allow her to take the rest of the day off.

IIRC, chromosomal defects account for some 2/3 of miscarriages. What about the rest?

Unogal

13-03-2006, 22:52

The thread topic effectivly exposes the illogicality of making abortion illegal

Ashmoria

13-03-2006, 23:26

Good point. I guess my goal then is to show that it should be illegal, not to say it is murder. Cuz you're right, right now it's not technically murder.
so maybe you should ask yourself (sometime later when you arent in adversarial thought mode) why it is that when abortion was illegal, getting an abortion wasnt considered homicide or murder.

what was the law in the past when abortion was illegal? what was the legal theory of why it was too awful to be allowed in a civil society?

why dont we have funerals for the product of early miscarriages?

we have hundreds of years of laws that we can look at that outlaw abortions (although for the vast majority of that time early abortions werent an option due to problems detecting pregnancy). its even almost referred to in the bible. its never equated to murder, homicide, manslaughter.

why not?

Dempublicents1

13-03-2006, 23:27

No, miscarriages are not homicide, nor are they naturally occurring abortions. Abortion is an intentional act, not a natural rejection of a malformed nascent being.

That's funny, considering that the medical term for a very early miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion." Apparently, you know better than the entire medical community what "abortion" means.

Bitchkitten

13-03-2006, 23:33

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the penalty?

2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to ?

3) How about her friends who know?

4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the penalty?

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with ?

6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?

8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?

10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass ?

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass ?

13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?

14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?

15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to ?

16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to ?

As Molly notes, if you answer "no" to any of these questions, then you may well abortion with all your heart, but you don't really believe that the fetus (which, by definition in the South Dakota law is created at fertilization) is equal to a human being, and if that's not the case, then you can't honestly say that abortion is . This is the logical position that anti-abortion activists have put us all in.

16 and 19 are possibly. I wouldn't rule them out. But pretty much across the board I'd say "no" to all of them.

Dempublicents1

13-03-2006, 23:33

we have hundreds of years of laws that we can look at that outlaw abortions (although for the vast majority of that time early abortions werent an option due to problems detecting pregnancy). its even almost referred to in the bible. its never equated to murder, homicide, manslaughter.

Actually, we don't - not fully outlawed abortion, anyways. Up until the early parts of the 20th century, abortions were perfectly legal in the US and many other countries (especially those with something similar to English common law) up until the "quickening", at which time the mother can feel movement. It was only after medical (safe) abortions became available that many laws were made against it.

Ruloah

13-03-2006, 23:57

Inconsistency does mean that you don't actually believe what you say you do - that an embryo/fetus should receive all the rights of a human being.

No, inconsistency means that one has difficulty applying ones beliefs consistently in a horrible situation to the satisfaction of others.

Ok, so you've basically just said, "It's perfectly ok to kill someone for no reason, as long as you did it by cigarrette smoke."

Since I haven't yet died from secondhand smoke, I don't really believe in death by secondhand smoke. Mass media has publicized studies that go both ways, some say yes, some say no. It's like the eating question---behavior that one can get away with that normally does not affect others may be viewed differently if shown to be harmful to others in some fashion, like a baby in a womb.

Wait, so if a woman doesn't eat the right food, she can be charged with child abuse, but if she smokes, she can't? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

As I said, I have never heard of anything like this happening, translated means I don't really believe that it happens, so if it were to somehow happen, I suppose that there should be some penalty. And yes, I do hold cigarette smoking to a different standard.

No, but they would be liable for wrongful death in each case of death. Would the company in this case be liable for 1500 deaths?
I think that technically, frozen embryos are dead. That is why I kept saying, "why would we allow babies to be frozen?" Take the next door neighbor's annoying kid and stick him in a freezer. Take some eggs from some woman's ovary, fertilize them in a dish and freeze the resulting viable embryos. Neither ought to be done.

Look up "in vitro fertilization."
see above answer.

But they could possibly be manslaughters, if we count the embryo/fetus as a person.
If a woman takes such bad care of herself that she miscarries, I hesitate to advocate punishment, only because it is such a sad and pathetic case already. But if necessary, punishment must be meted out. Certainly requires more care and consideration than I am able to give while typing out a quick answer.

IIRC, chromosomal defects account for some 2/3 of miscarriages. What about the rest?
I would imagine that something else is going wrong, whether because of the biology of the baby or the mother, pollution in the water or air, repeated punches in the stomach from an angry boyfriend, or whatever. Each case would have to be evaluated individually, without involving the extreme reactions on either side. There must be some unhappy medium for all these questions.

Bel-Da-Raptora

14-03-2006, 00:04

The whole argument boils down to whether the baby inside the mother can be considered as part of her body, or as a separate body. As part of her body, she has full rights and responsibly already laid out in laws across the world, so may smoke and drink to her hearts content. However, if and when the baby is considered, if not a fully separate body from the mother than at least a partial separate one, then it gains the same rights as the dependent babe it will be at birth.

The leading question seems to be a mystical WHEN, of where a group of cells growing inside a womans body can be considered a human.

The problem is that any figure created, other than absolute 0 (where the baby is considered a body from the moment of conception) to the final moments (where the baby is only considered a separate body when separated from the mother, IE at birth), is completely arbitrary. There is no fixed point where the foetus becomes baby. But even the most ardent extremists cannot successfully argue that a collection of multiplying cells a few hours old constitutes a human life, or that crushing that foetuses skull at 30 weeks so to abort it doesn’t have the stink of child slaughter.

This is why I’m pro choice. If the woman is given adequate information into the current stare of her potential child, then it is perfectly right that she has the final decision as for what is to happen in her body.

The Nazz

14-03-2006, 14:05

The leading question seems to be a mystical WHEN, of where a group of cells growing inside a womans body can be considered a human.
That's really the root of the problem--the question of when life begins is one rooted in mysticism, not empirical fact. There is no stage of fetal development where we can definitively say "this is alive now." We can make guesses, we can make observations about brain development and synaptic connections, and we can make rhetorical arguments about fertilization versus implantation versus "quickening" versus birth, but in the end, there's no objective way to determine what is alive and what is not when it comes to the fetus.

I'm an extremist. I tend to think that until the fetus makes the jump from mother to outside world, it's only potential life--it's not alive until it's kicking and screaming on its own outside the mother. But that's only my opinion.

The Alma Mater

14-03-2006, 15:56

Cabra West

14-03-2006, 15:59

Hmmm... what is wrong with "the fetus starts its life the moment it can actually experience things" ? Not from the biological point of view, but from a philosophical one.

When would that be, then? Philosophically?
(I take it that this is a very theoretical approach, as we are in fact discussing biology here...)

The Nazz

14-03-2006, 16:49

Hmmm... what is wrong with "the fetus starts its life the moment it can actually experience things" ? Not from the biological point of view, but from a philosophical one.
Can you empirically define what it means to "experience things?" Probably not, and in this sort of a debate, where the power to make a decision about one's own body has real-world consequences, a hazy definition about when an organism can begin to "experience things" just isn't definitive enough. It's great for speculation, but speculation shouldn't inform the legal right to self-determine to seek medical treatment.

The Alma Mater

14-03-2006, 17:13

Can you empirically define what it means to "experience things?"

In my opinion it is one the brain is capable of receiving and storing impulses.
People who believe in souls will of course place it at an earlier moment.

Probably not, and in this sort of a debate, where the power to make a decision about one's own body has real-world consequences, a hazy definition about when an organism can begin to "experience things" just isn't definitive enough. It's great for speculation, but speculation shouldn't inform the legal right to self-determine to seek medical treatment.

On the contrary- it *should*. The whole abortion debate centers around the question if abortion is murder or not. People use arguments like "it has human dna - therefor it is human" or "we were all a fetus once !" - without realising that those arguments may not be relevant to the discussion at all. They are forgetting to first explore the more fundamental questions like "when is murder/killing a bad thing", "when does dying harm something" and "is coming into existence better than to have never existed at all". They just yell "killing bad - meeeeh !" without thinking about why killing is bad. And yes, many pro-choicers do the same.

And when one does explore those questions, one can easily form an opinion on the debate. A pro-choice opinion in most cases.

The Niaman

14-03-2006, 17:13

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?

A: Yes

2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?

A:Yes

3) How about her friends who know?

A: Yes

4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?

A: Heck Yes! Stupid idiots purposely kill and thereby purposely break the Hippocatic Oath- String 'em up the nearest tree!

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?

A: Yes

6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?

A: If he does nothing, Yes

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?

A: :confused: Do you seriously know any woman who eats "Heathy" during pregnancy?

8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?

A: Based on the previous question, no.

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?

A: No. Now you're just getting semantic on me.

10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?

A: No

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?

A: Yes. However, I believe invitro fertilization and fertility clinics should be banned. There's plenty of children to adopt without science messing with ethics.

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder?

A: Most Likely, yes

13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?

A: Yes- though just about everything the gov't touches (even with good intentions) turns to lead.

14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?

A: No

15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?

A: Well, let's see, seeing as how I'm after the "except to save the life of the mother", he's saving the life of the mother, even though it could be at the baby's expense. However, that is not to say they shouldn't try to keep the baby alive as well.

16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?

A: Yes

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?

A: Yes. Let's end the invitro fertilization. It just makes moral and legal messes.

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?

A: No, because then you're going to want a sperm count too, and you're just gonna screw the rest of us into the ground.

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?

A: Care for the child-Yes

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death?

A: If I could have it my way, and abortion be banned, Yes. Every last abortion would be answered for. Methodical mass murder of babies is no laughing matter.:mad:
:rolleyes:

Muravyets

14-03-2006, 17:24

When would that be, then? Philosophically?
(I take it that this is a very theoretical approach, as we are in fact discussing biology here...)
Age 36.

I don't think it's too "theoretical" an approach at all. Frankly, I think the emphasis on biology is one of the main reasons the debate is bogged down. The question posed by the anti-choice movement is a mystical/philosophical one, as Bel-Da-Raptor points out, and the really relevant answers will be philosophical.

Dempublicents1

14-03-2006, 17:32

No, inconsistency means that one has difficulty applying ones beliefs consistently in a horrible situation to the satisfaction of others.

And if you cannot apply your beliefs, then you don't actually know what they are.

Since I haven't yet died from secondhand smoke, I don't really believe in death by secondhand smoke.

We aren't talking about secondhand smoke, now are we? We are talking about firsthand effects of smoke on a developing embryo/fetus. If you had someone in your body, getting all their oxygen from you, and you smoked, you can guarrantee that there would be problems.

Do you know what cigarette smoke does in the lungs? It screws with an enzyme known as elastase - making it hyperactive. Why is this a bad thing? It destroys the elastin in your lungs, making them less elastic and leading to conditions in which the lungs cannot fill up with air - such as emphysema. The chemicals from the smoke could do the same to a developing fetus, only this fetus would never have fully developed lungs at all.

Smoking also decreases the amount of oxygen in your blood and increases the amount of carbon monoxide - which is less likely to detach from hemoglobin than oxygen once it is attached. This means that there is less oxygen in your blood - for your tissues and those of the embryo/fetus. Less oxygen can lead to all sorts of problems.

I think that technically, frozen embryos are dead.

You can think that all you want, but you are wrong. Frozen cells are not necessarily dead -they are in stasis of a sort. I freeze cells all the time, and then thaw them and grow them in culture.

Take some eggs from some woman's ovary, fertilize them in a dish and freeze the resulting viable embryos. Neither ought to be done.

You are opposed to in vitro fertilization then?

I would imagine that something else is going wrong, whether because of the biology of the baby or the mother, pollution in the water or air, repeated punches in the stomach from an angry boyfriend, or whatever. Each case would have to be evaluated individually, without involving the extreme reactions on either side. There must be some unhappy medium for all these questions.

Yes, so we are going to have to examine the miscarried tissue of every sexually active woman (including taking her menses to check, in case she didn't know she had a fertilized egg in her), check them for chromosmal defects (in which case she is off the hook), and then, if there are none, and no other obvious cause of death can be found, investigate her for murder/manslaughter.

As if having a miscarriage isn't hard enough on a woman...

The Niaman

14-03-2006, 17:39

I'm opposed to invitro fertilization. It makes too many legal and moral messes. There are plenty of children to adopt.

Dempublicents1

14-03-2006, 17:40

That's really the root of the problem--the question of when life begins is one rooted in mysticism, not empirical fact. There is no stage of fetal development where we can definitively say "this is alive now." We can make guesses, we can make observations about brain development and synaptic connections, and we can make rhetorical arguments about fertilization versus implantation versus "quickening" versus birth, but in the end, there's no objective way to determine what is alive and what is not when it comes to the fetus.

If a definition of life is used, and applied correctly, that is perfectly objective. People may argue over the definition, but so long as the definition is not created solely for this argument, and is applied the same to all possible entities, it is being used objectively.

In my opinion it is one the brain is capable of receiving and storing impulses.
People who believe in souls will of course place it at an earlier moment.

Not necessarily. I have seen more than one person state a belief that the soul enters the body at this time point.

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
A: Yes
2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
A:Yes
3) How about her friends who know?
A: No- That's just dumb- that's never been part of punishing murder

Wow, glaring inconsistency right from the start. Based on the law, *anyone* who knows that someone is going to commit a crime, and doesn't report it, is an accessory. If you say that the husband must be charged, then so must any of her friends who knew of her intentions.

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?

A: Do you seriously know any woman who eats "Heathy" during pregnancy?

To a point, yes.

Now answer the question, Claire.

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?

A: No. Now you're just getting semantic on me.

So it is ok to do something that has a huge chance of resulting in the death of another?

Or are you admitting that the embryo/fetus is not the same as a born human being?

14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?

A: No. The cancer isn't in her control, it does its own thing. Why would anybody consider that murder- it can't be helped.

The cancer is not in her control - her treatment is. She could choose not to undergo chemo in order to ensure the survival of her fetus - women have been known to do so.

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?

A: No, because then you're going to want a sperm count too, and you're just gonna screw the rest of us into the ground.

So you admit that arguing that an embryo/fetus is a human person is logically equivalent to arguing that a sperm/egg is?

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death?

A: Abortion has been "Legal" for twenty plus years. Legally, you cannot go back and imprison someone for a crime committed when it wasn't a crime. All current abortion cases would have no legal hold. If the law changes, then any abortions after would be prosecuted. But not previous abortions. And nowhere near 1 in every 3 women has had an abortion. More like 1 in every 8 or 10.

Actually, IIRC, CDC statistics show that 1 in 2 women will have an abortion during some point in their lifetime.

Meanwhile, we aren't talking about current law - we are talking about what you *think* should happen.

Dempublicents1

14-03-2006, 17:41

Age 36.

I don't think it's too "theoretical" an approach at all. Frankly, I think the emphasis on biology is one of the main reasons the debate is bogged down. The question posed by the anti-choice movement is a mystical/philosophical one, as Bel-Da-Raptor points out, and the really relevant answers will be philosophical.

And yet they are the ones who always bring in biology (and demonstrate their ignorance of it, but I guess that's irrelevant).

Muravyets

14-03-2006, 17:45

In my opinion it is one the brain is capable of receiving and storing impulses.
People who believe in souls will of course place it at an earlier moment.

On the contrary- it *should*. The whole abortion debate centers around the question if abortion is murder or not. People use arguments like "it has human dna - therefor it is human" or "we were all a fetus once !" - without realising that those arguments may not be relevant to the discussion at all. They are forgetting to first explore the more fundamental questions like "when is murder/killing a bad thing", "when does dying harm something" and "is coming into existence better than to have never existed at all". They just yell "killing bad - meeeeh !" without thinking about why killing is bad. And yes, many pro-choicers do the same.

And when one does explore those questions, one can easily form an opinion on the debate. A pro-choice opinion in most cases.
I agree. I think that the reason these debates get bogged down in biological details is that people don't want to think about the harsh reality of people having to make life and death decisions that affect other people. They don't like the reality that they can't save everyone. They want science to make the rules for them, relieve them of having to make these harsh judgment calls, but it can't. Everyday, we cope with the harshness of life, but we don't like to be made aware that we are doing it. Doctors don't have the luxury of that ignorance, and neither do pregnant women.

As others have pointed out, before Roe v. Wade, abortion was legally available to most Americans. What Roe did, though, was put a spotlight on abortion, which is one of the harshest, most unpleasant medical decisions people have to make, and I think that is what has freaked out the nation ever since.

Abortion is about loss, disappointment, limitations, failure, sickness and pain -- physical, yes, but even more emotional and psychological. Medically, it's a simple and relatively non-invasive procedure, much safer than birth. What makes the decision difficult is that it is about life and death -- and such decisions are always philosophical. They are also profoundly personal to each individual.

The Niaman

14-03-2006, 17:59

1. Wow, glaring inconsistency right from the start. Based on the law, *anyone* who knows that someone is going to commit a crime, and doesn't report it, is an accessory. If you say that the husband must be charged, then so must any of her friends who knew of her intentions.

2. So it is ok to do something that has a huge chance of resulting in the death of another?

3. Or are you admitting that the embryo/fetus is not the same as a born human being?

4. The cancer is not in her control - her treatment is. She could choose not to undergo chemo in order to ensure the survival of her fetus - women have been known to do so.

5. So you admit that arguing that an embryo/fetus is a human person is logically equivalent to arguing that a sperm/egg is?

.6 Meanwhile, we aren't talking about current law - we are talking about what you *think* should happen.

1. My knowledge of the law isn't perfect. Based on the knowledge you have given me (my opinions are subject to change only on true knowledge) I change my answer to "no".

2. Depends. There are many moral dilemmas that involve that. Generally speaking in ordinary circumstances-No.

3. Yes, and No. I believe it is equivilent, however, I don't think we should have invitro fertilization in the first place, for the very reason that it causes all these new arguments.

4. As I have said before- I am for exceptions in cases to save the life of the mother. That's one of those cases. However, if she chooses not to have treatment to save the baby, instead of herself, then that is her decision.

5. No, but the embryo's are sitting in a clinic, not dependent on the "parent", so there should be not tax cut, otherwise he'll just go donate all the sperm he possibly can til he doesn't have to pay taxes.

6. Fine. I'll go back and change my answers based on if things were my way.

Muravyets

14-03-2006, 18:01

And yet they are the ones who always bring in biology (and demonstrate their ignorance of it, but I guess that's irrelevant).
Yes, of course, and I think there are at least 3 reasons why anti-choicers do that:

1. It's a vain attempt to make their mystical argument look like provable fact so no one can argue against it. That doesn't work, as we've all seen again and again.

2. It's an emotional over-reaction to the medical realities of abortion -- like New Rodichia's use of those inflammatory photos that mean nothing in and of themselves. It's a lot easier to throw histrionics over the sight of blood than to really think about life and death.

3. It's an attempt to disguise a religious agenda as scientific fact in order to make it easier to turn it into law. Let's none of us kid ourselves -- for every anti-choicer who goes faint at the thought of poor little babies, there are 20 or more who are far more worked up over non-virginal sluts doing what they want just as if they were free to. Regardless of what the anti-choice movement claims in terms of biology or their own motives, the practical effect of all anti-abortion laws is only to control the lives of women and take away their rights as citizens. It so happens that complaining about the sex lives of women is a cornerstone of the religious right movement in America.

Really, when you think about it, I guess the real warriors against abortion would rather set themselves on fire than address the philosophical issues, because if we did concentrate on philosophy, the various parties might reach some form of mutual co-existence agreement -- and what would that do to their master plan, then?

The Niaman

14-03-2006, 18:31

Yes, of course, and I think there are at least 3 reasons why anti-choicers do that:

1. It's a vain attempt to make their mystical argument look like provable fact so no one can argue against it. That doesn't work, as we've all seen again and again.

2. It's an emotional over-reaction to the medical realities of abortion -- like New Rodichia's use of those inflammatory photos that mean nothing in and of themselves. It's a lot easier to throw histrionics over the sight of blood than to really think about life and death.

3. It's an attempt to disguise a religious agenda as scientific fact in order to make it easier to turn it into law. Let's none of us kid ourselves -- for every anti-choicer who goes faint at the thought of poor little babies, there are 20 or more who are far more worked up over non-virginal sluts doing what they want just as if they were free to. Regardless of what the anti-choice movement claims in terms of biology or their own motives, the practical effect of all anti-abortion laws is only to control the lives of women and take away their rights as citizens. It so happens that complaining about the sex lives of women is a cornerstone of the religious right movement in America.

Really, when you think about it, I guess the real warriors against abortion would rather set themselves on fire than address the philosophical issues, because if we did concentrate on philosophy, the various parties might reach some form of mutual co-existence agreement -- and what would that do to their master plan, then?

You know, your third point is very right in some regards.

It irks me that we have turned ourselves into a bunch of sluts and man-whores, which is the biggest cause of abortion in the first place!:headbang: :mad: :upyours:
IT MAKES ME MAD!!! :headbang: :mad: :upyours: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Heavenly Sex

14-03-2006, 19:23

I'll put my answers in bold.

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
Hell no. She should be freely able to abort during the first 21 weeks.

2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
Never!

3) How about her friends who know?
Never!

4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
Never!

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?
Never!

6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?
Never!

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?
Never!

8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?
Never!

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?
Never!

10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?
Never!

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?
Never!

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder?
Never!

13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?
Never!

14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?
Never!

15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
Never!

16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?
This question isn't quite as insane as the preceding ones, but still no.

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?
They shouldn't have any frozen embryos in the first place, especially not 15!

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?
Never!

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?
If she's excessively neglectful, so that it was highly probable that the child would have birth defects/handicaps because of it, she should be forced to have an abortion.

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death?
That's bs.

Muravyets

14-03-2006, 19:25

You know, your third point is very right in some regards.

It irks me that we have turned ourselves into a bunch of sluts and man-whores, which is the biggest cause of abortion in the first place!:headbang: :mad: :upyours:
IT MAKES ME MAD!!! :headbang: :mad: :upyours: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:
Don't even go there, pal. I happen to be fighting for the rights of what you call sluts, so :upyours:

(PS: This is the very first time I've ever used the upyours smilie. I hope it will be the last, but it might not if you make a habit of trying to twist my words to support your agenda.)

Dempublicents1

14-03-2006, 19:38

1. My knowledge of the law isn't perfect. Based on the knowledge you have given me (my opinions are subject to change only on true knowledge) I change my answer to "no".

Should I assume that you meant you change your answer to "yes", since it was already a no?

2. Depends. There are many moral dilemmas that involve that. Generally speaking in ordinary circumstances-No.

What exactly comes up in general life in which you doing what you want (not need) will have a high percentage chance of killing someone and it is actually moral to do it anyways?

3. Yes, and No. I believe it is equivilent,

You just contradicted yourself. If they are equivalent, then there is no "yes".

however, I don't think we should have invitro fertilization in the first place, for the very reason that it causes all these new arguments.

In vitro had nothing to do with it. We were talking about a woman with a condition that would make it impossible/very difficult for her to carry to term and give birth to a living child. What does in vitro have to do with that?

4. As I have said before- I am for exceptions in cases to save the life of the mother. That's one of those cases. However, if she chooses not to have treatment to save the baby, instead of herself, then that is her decision.

So the mother's life is more important than that of the "child"?

5. No, but the embryo's are sitting in a clinic, not dependent on the "parent", so there should be not tax cut, otherwise he'll just go donate all the sperm he possibly can til he doesn't have to pay taxes.

Embryos in an in vitro clinic rarely, if ever, come from sperm donations. It is usually a couple who have not been able to conceive naturally, so they go to have help.

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?
They shouldn't have any frozen embryos in the first place, especially not 15!

Ok, so are you opposed to in vitro fertilization, or just to keeping the extra embryos for subsequent pregnancies?

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?
If she's excessively neglectful, so that it was highly probable that the child would have birth defects/handicaps because of it, she should be forced to have an abortion.

Advocating forced abortion means you are not pro-choice. Your statement is no more or less supportable than those who advocate forcing a woman *not* to abort.

Ashmoria

14-03-2006, 20:14

Actually, we don't - not fully outlawed abortion, anyways. Up until the early parts of the 20th century, abortions were perfectly legal in the US and many other countries (especially those with something similar to English common law) up until the "quickening", at which time the mother can feel movement. It was only after medical (safe) abortions became available that many laws were made against it.
well thats sort of the point im hoping that he would take from looking it up.

before quickening, a woman was free to do whatever she pleased, not that it was particularily successful. but if she wanted to take an herbal tea designed to "start her period" that was her business, no one knew and no one cared. after it was obvious that she was pregnant, it became, over time, illegal to interrupt the pregnancy. mostly because there was no safe medical or surgical abortion and so it tended to kill the woman. they were laws to outlaw butchery, in essence. not unlike going to an unlicensed practioner today.

todays laws mirror what was done in the past. a woman no longer has to try some herbal remedy to abort an early pregnancy. she no longer has to put her life and fertility at grave risk. as the fetus grows toward viability, there are laws to limit when and why she can abort. as it was in the past. except that now, unlike the past, we can tell when a fetus is gravely handicapped and can abort those later pregnancies that would have come to tragedy if brought to birth.

Puppet States

14-03-2006, 22:24

Your entire "test" is legally suspect, inaccurate, and misleading. Maybe instead of just copying and pasting, you should work through it yourself looking up the definition of the crimes alleged.

DISCLAIMER: Any legal analysis below has been greatly truncated due to time and space. It should in no way be regarded as 100% complete, but rather just as a display of the fallacies of the proposed "test."

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
If law classifies the fetus as a human being without prescribing another punishment, and there is no justification/excuse (choice of evils would be the obvious example, if the life of the mother is in danger), then murder/mansluaghter would probably be a sustainable charge. The crime under which she was charged would need to include that as an allowable penalty. See number 5 for a defintion of murder.

2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
Knowledge alone doesn't make one an accessory. Get a legal dictionary. You need to counsel, procure, aid or abet the crime.

3) How about her friends who know?
See #2

4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
See #1.

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?
I'll assume you're working off the common law, and not anything state specifc. If you could establish intent and malice. Murder is the intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is established by intent to kill, intent to do great bodily harm, wanton/willful disregard of likelihood that tendency of the conduct to cause death/grat bodily harm, or felony murder. Malice, unless the smoking was consciously done to cause the death of the fetus, would almost certainly not exist. The proper charge would be manslaughter, if anything. Voluntary manslaughter is really all those killings not amounting to murder (i.e. intentional killing without malice aforethought). Involuntary is sometimes degined using recklessness not amounting to willful/wanton disregard, or gross negligence.

6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?
Knowledge alone won't do it. To be criminally negligent, you must have at least gross negligence, not just regular negligence. And the American rule is that there is no duty to aid or rescue. An omission without a duty would (almost) never be grossly negligent. Begs the question... would a duty exist? Misprision of felony hasn't been a crime in some time in almost every US jurisdiction. Misprision of felony is an affirmative duty to report an illegal act. In most jurisictions, it does not exist, so your question is inapplicable. You can tell your neighbor you intend to kill your wife, but he's not guilty of anything for not calling the police.

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?
Negligent homicide, in many jurisidctions does not exist (or exists only in the context of vehicle-related homicide). New York is a notable exception. Again, gross negligence at least would be required. That requires more than just a simple deviation from an ordinary duty of care. It would require a gross deviation approaching recklessness. On these facts, it is unlikely the charge coule be sustained.

8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?
Obviously, whoever wrote this test has never seen a legal text book on criminal law. Knowledge alone will not cut it. See numbers 2, 3, and 6.

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?
Probably not. See number 5 for a discussion of "malice" used in murder, for present case, malice shall be written shorthand as intent to kill. Murder and manslaughter speak to the intent to take a life or the negligence which led to the death. You could not have the intent to kill nor the negligence as to the possibility of death for something that has not yet been brought into existance. If you have a child just so you can kill it when it reaches the age of 5, the creation of the child would not be murder or manslaughter. The killing would be. Likewise, i could not be guilty of attempt to commit arson when the building i intend to burn does not yet exist. Logically impossible.

10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?
Sigh... all this talk of knowing another's intent to commit a crime. See numbers 2, 3, 6, and 8.

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?
No. Murder is the "intentional killing of another huma being with malice aforethought." Not only is malice lacking, but there is not even intent. The scenario given paints an accident, not an intentional arson.

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder?
See #11.

13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?
Depending on the statutory definition for "child," which could very well change if the legislature makes a fetus a person, and "abuse," then yes.

14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?
You'd have to prove murder. See # 5 for the definition of murder. Further, you'd have a built in justification of necessity or choice of evils. If proved (almost a certainty, given the facts), then no.

15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
Again... accessory requires more than knowledge. See numbers 2, 3, 6, 8, and 10. Furthermore, justifications are transferable (as opposed to excuses), so the doctor could claim the mother's justification of necessity.

16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?
If the danger was known, and you could meet the statutory elements to prove a tort, yes. I doubt battery would apply because the symbiotic relationship between mother and fetus (battery is the intentional touching of another, and mother and fetus are in constant contact, so applying traditional battery principles would lead to problems) is vastly different from that of two people who meet on the street. Assault is to put one in apprehension of a battery, and since a fetus would doubtful be able to be put in fear of anything at that point, it's inapposite. Perhaps intentional infliction of emotional distress, or negligent infliction of emotional distress. But those are the 2 weakest torts in existance, and without a more substantial charge, they almost always fail.

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?
Science isn't my strong point... if i remember correctly, an embryo is a fertilized egg, meaning it has genetic material from both parents. I'll work from that assumption, because if you just mean the unfirtilized egg, then no "life" has begun as the development process can't begin till fertilization. I can't figure out why that would need to be mandated. So long as the embryo is viable, it is not dead, but in a form of stasis. Nothing would've been destroyed, by a delay, so i can't see there being any problem.

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?
Again, working under the assumption from #17. Maybe up to the amount it costs to keep the embryo frozen could be a deduction. Otherwise, no, because you are not spending anything else to support the embryo.

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?
See number 13 for the problems of "child" and "abuse." Depending on the law, perhaps the mother could be held responsible and lose custody once birth occurs, but probably not have the child forcefully removed, as such a procedure would not only be an intrusion on the mother, but could endanger the life of the fetus. It's not like an omlette, you can't afford to break a few eggs.

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death?
If they commit a crime requiring prison or the death penalty, then like any American, yes, they should do their time. If not, then no. What kind of ignorant question is this?

Bitchkitten

14-03-2006, 22:29

You know, your third point is very right in some regards.

It irks me that we have turned ourselves into a bunch of s and man-whores, which is the biggest cause of abortion in the first place!:headbang: :mad: :upyours:
IT MAKES ME MAD!!! :headbang: :mad: :upyours: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Prude. You need to get laid.

Dempublicents1

14-03-2006, 23:47

Your entire "test" is legally suspect, inaccurate, and misleading. Maybe instead of just copying and pasting, you should work through it yourself looking up the definition of the crimes alleged.

Maybe that is because (a) the test is asking for opinions, not legal actualities and (b) Anti-choicers regularly misuse the word murder by calling abortion murder.

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?
Negligent homicide, in many jurisidctions does not exist (or exists only in the context of vehicle-related homicide). New York is a notable exception. Again, gross negligence at least would be required. That requires more than just a simple deviation from an ordinary duty of care. It would require a gross deviation approaching recklessness. On these facts, it is unlikely the charge coule be sustained.

If a woman doesn't feed her born child and it dies, is she not charged with neglect and some form of homicide?

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?
No. Murder is the "intentional killing of another huma being with malice aforethought." Not only is malice lacking, but there is not even intent. The scenario given paints an accident, not an intentional arson.

But if a faulty product causes a building to catch on fire and people are caught in the blaze and die, can their families not sue the company for wrongful death?

You are getting too caught up in exact terms. I think it's good to properly use terms, which is why I have sprinkled the thread with terms like manslaughter and wrongful death. But you also have to remember that the anti-choice crowd *often* misuses the term murder, and these questions were geared towards them.

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?
Science isn't my strong point... if i remember correctly, an embryo is a fertilized egg, meaning it has genetic material from both parents. I'll work from that assumption, because if you just mean the unfirtilized egg, then no "life" has begun as the development process can't begin till fertilization. I can't figure out why that would need to be mandated. So long as the embryo is viable, it is not dead, but in a form of stasis. Nothing would've been destroyed, by a delay, so i can't see there being any problem.

A frozen embryo has not only been fertilized - it has divided a few times. With perfect freezing of tissues, it truly would be stasis and the amount of time frozen would not matter, but this is not the case in the real world. There is reason to believe that, the longer cells are kept frozen, the less likely it will be that they will be alive when thawed.

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?
Again, working under the assumption from #17. Maybe up to the amount it costs to keep the embryo frozen could be a deduction. Otherwise, no, because you are not spending anything else to support the embryo.

In regular taxes, do you claim exactly the amount spent on the child? Or do you have a standard deduction for dependents?

Lionstone

15-03-2006, 00:05

If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork

Hahah, might be interesting to see someone try....

Achtung 45

15-03-2006, 00:28

You know, your third point is very right in some regards.

It irks me that we have turned ourselves into a bunch of sluts and man-whores, which is the biggest cause of abortion in the first place!:mad: :upyours:
IT MAKES ME MAD!!!:mad: :upyours:
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/206.gif http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/434.gif http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb132.gifhttp://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/617.gif http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/690.gif looks like I win on the smily count :D

Puppet States

15-03-2006, 01:05

Maybe that is because (a) the test is asking for opinions, not legal actualities and (b) Anti-choicers regularly misuse the word murder by calling abortion murder.

The test says "would i be willing in any consistent way." I cannot answer the questions because they were written in an inconsistent and illogical way. And if the pro-lifers (i can use the spin words too ;) ) regularly jumped off bridges, would the anti-lifers follow suit? I've heard the claims from anti-abortion folks (now, i'll switch to the neutral term of pro- and anti- issue as opposed to the euphemism) that "abortion is murder." Technically, if a fetus is a human, then by the definition of the word "murder," they're right. It is an intentional (some overt act, as opposed to a muscle spasm or seizure, for instance) killing, of another human being (the fetus, if defined as a human) with malice aforethought (intent to kill). What makes the claim a misuse of the word is that most states don't legally regard a fetus as a human being right now (but see the lacy peterson law passed by Congress... kill a pregnant woman, and you can be held accountable for the fetus' death too, so go figure). Change that, and it's a whole new ball game.

If a woman doesn't feed her born child and it dies, is she not charged with neglect and some form of homicide?

Does not feed and feeds unhealthy food are 2 very different things. You cannot unintentionally not feed a child. Therefore, scienter is satisfied, and it is common knowledge that if you do not feed something it will die (reckless disregard for the natural consequences of your acts). On the other hand, if anything, we americans have proven that eating unhealthilly does not always result in death. Would someone really be reckless in assuming that unhealthy food could cause death or great bodily harm within 9 months? Doubtful. When was the last time you saw a parent prosecuted for feeding their kids too much candy or fatty foods? ... Exactly.
Or, if you mean "neglect" as in child abuse (as opposed to negligence, an element in some forms of homicides and often used in tort law)... see my response to #13.

But if a faulty product causes a building to catch on fire and people are caught in the blaze and die, can their families not sue the company for wrongful death?

Wrongful death is a tort, a civil as opposed to a criminal wrong. Murder is a crime. As the question asked about "mass murder," an analysis of wrongful death is irrelevant. You have also inserted the word "faulty" into the analysis. The question says only "product." If it was a true accident, and despite all due care being observed, the product "ignites a fire", then no, they cannot sue for wrongful death. There must at least be some negligence.

You are getting too caught up in exact terms. I think it's good to properly use terms, which is why I have sprinkled the thread with terms like manslaughter and wrongful death. But you also have to remember that the anti-choice crowd *often* misuses the term murder, and these questions were geared towards them.
I consider myself part of the anti-abortion crowd, however, i do not side with the extreme. I think in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger, it is allowable (if i were one of the people who currently calls it murder, i'd say these would be justified homicides forced on the mother by necessity or the choice of evils). By feeding the misuse of terms of art, articles such as this only exacerbate the problem.

A frozen embryo has not only been fertilized - it has divided a few times. With perfect freezing of tissues, it truly would be stasis and the amount of time frozen would not matter, but this is not the case in the real world. There is reason to believe that, the longer cells are kept frozen, the less likely it will be that they will be alive when thawed.

Thanks... as i've said it has been a long time since i've taken any sort of science class. I'd say they could be stored up until they are no longer viable with no problems. So long as it is not detroyed, i'd think there's no problem to a delay. And in fact, depending on how any hypothetical law defined "fetus" this example may not even come within the scope of the law, thereby mooting the problem.
Had to do a little deleting in this one and the next, as i misread the reply originally.

In regular taxes, do you claim exactly the amount spent on the child? Or do you have a standard deduction for dependents?
Never cared for tax law, actually... but the presumption underlying it is that you must clothe, feed, house, and generally take care of your dependents. Obviously, these assumptions are false for an embryo which requires only storage. The tax code is most often construed to the benefit of the government, so i'd doubt you'd get a full deduction for a dependent (especially since the term, unless dealt with by the legislature in the meantime) would've been defined in a time when a fetus was not defined as a human.

New Rhodichia

15-03-2006, 02:38

First of all, Muravyets, look at http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed= for the definition of homicide off of www.law.com. Check your sources, law.com should know what they're talking about regarding law.
I wasn't saying *you* smoke, just that those who do can stop. What if the woman were instead addicted to heroin. Would you say, "Oh well, she's got an addiction, guess it's not her fault if it means someone dies." What about crack? What about alcohol.
I'm surprised you're bringing heroin and stuff into the question. Whereas smoking is legal, heroin is not. There's a difference. And for alcohol, you're not even supposed to have any to begin with during pregnancy. I don't know if that's actually an existing law, but it's far worse than smoking as far as I can tell. Not that I approve of smoking either.
There is always something she can do.
She can honestly try to stop but it's tough. As I'm sure you know many people try to quit smoking and can't do it. It's not as easy as "1 2 3 boom you're off the stuff and you're gonna have a healthy baby."
It doesn't have to be a murder attempt. It fully and completely meets the definition of manslaughter. And if I know you are doing something dangerous enough to get you charged with manslaughter and don't report it, I will be charged as an accessory.
Smoking would have to be illegal in order to charge the woman with anything.
Yes, it is. Reread the question.
You were giving an example of you trying to acheive/receive something with the risk of expending someone's life. That is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is trying to give someone life, with the risk of them not making it. You told me to reread the question and I did, but my answer stands firm: "I would not tell you to go for it," and I say again that there is nothing wrong with trying to have a healthy baby.
There is if it is virtually impossible for them to do so and you believe the embryo/fetus to be a human being with all the rights therein.
Quite honestly I'm still not sure I know what you're talking about. What is so wrong with trying to have a baby?
For what? Wrongful death? Or simply criminal negligence?
Kinda both. The death is wrong because the babies shouldn't really be there to begin with (though the company can't be sued for that, only the "doctors" and/or "scientists" responsible). Puppet States kinda talked about this so I won't really go into it.
The tax deductions apply to all children. Anyone who has custody of a child can take the tax breaks. If you do not think the tax breaks should be given, you do not think the embryo/fetus is a child.

Fetuses do not have all the rights a born person has. The right to not be deprived of property, for instance, without due process of law. What the heck would they do with any kind of property? It just doesn't apply. In the same way tax breaks should in no way apply to them, because all they rely on is cold temperatures.
If I were hitting you over and over again and you might die from it, would incarcerating me be "just as wrong as killing" you?
After rereading what you originally asked I realized what you probably meant by controlling her body- making sure she takes care of the baby. That much I would agree with, assuming that's what you meant. I would have no problem with her being arrested, either. I was exaggerating when I said "just as wrong as killing the baby," but "controlling her body" can be bad as well, again depending on what you mean by control.
And to answer your quesiton, no. Your arrest would be just in that case.
Reasons are not equivalent to logical. Your answers are illogical because they are inconsistent. At one moment you are claiming that the embryo/fetus is a full human being with all the rights therein. In the next, you make excuses for why we shouldn't actually treat them the same as such a human being.
As I said, different rights are given and/or taken away to people depending on their age. 16 year-olds can get their license, for example (yay for me), and adults can't be on children's forums. In the same way, not every right applies to fetuses. That does not mean I think they are inferior.
Giving reasons is irrelevant. You have to have internal consistency. You do not.
At this time I am in total disagreement as to whether I have internal consistency. To my knowledge I have justified everything I said, whereas I have found at least one contradiciton just in the response I am currently responding to.
For one thing, there is no choice to kill the unborn. There is simply the choice to end a pregnancy - to end the condition of the mother. The result is that the embryo/fetus, if it is alive at this point, dies.Key phrase there: The result is that the embryo/fetus... dies. So it is killing the unborn. This is the contradiciton I mentioned above.
Unless you want to talk about it, for now I'll ignore the scientific debate on whether they're actually alive. I'll leave that up to you guys.
It is irrelevant. They have little arms and legs and they look disturbing because they remind us of ourselves. Of course, we must also remember that they can't feel anything, as they don't even have the wiring to do so. They have no consciousness - probably no brain at all even. The pictures look gruesome, but without more than, "Look at these gruesome pictures!" you have nothing.
On the contrary, there are many photos with seemingly pained expressions on the faces. Not necessarily from incisions or whatever, but perhaps from life being sucked out of them. Perhaps from being drowned in air they're not yet ready for. And beyond that, even if you disagree with the pained expressions, I do "have more" than showing those pictures. Those pictures are merely a bit of justification for what I "have." That's it.
I was in that thread. I was talking to you. I didn't see any pro-abortionists, save maybe one. I saw many who were pro-choice, quite a few of whom expressed distaste with abortion in general.
I am pro-choice. Everyone please stop saying people like me are not. I am merely against "choice" regarding abortion. Your misuse of words is beginning to get on my nerves. We're talking about abortion, not choice in general.

Ok so anyway...
Your statement here blows me away. If you are pro-abortion, you are a pro-abortionist (or pro-choice as you call it). So by saying there was only one pro-abortionist in that thread, you are acknowledging everyone there agreed abortion is wrong. Including yourself, which sounds kinda contradictory if you ask me. Unless of course you're saying you were that one. The fact is however I was one of the few participants on that thread who were against abortion.
So you would prosecute a woman who had a miscarriage due to her own bad habits for manslaughter, even if she never knew she was pregnant until she miscarried?
Yes. Ignorance is no excuse. There is no way she should indulge in whatever risky behavior so soon after "indulging" in the biological attempt for a baby. If she doesn't remember that night at all because she was high or something, then she should at the very least be prosecuted for being high. Maybe even for that and criminal negligence or whatever the charge would be.
Yes. If the odds are high that the child will be born with gross chromosomal defects, then the parents should adopt.
I never said there was anything wrong with adoption. I just don't see what's wrong with trying to have a baby. Now if it's absolutely positive the baby won't survive or that he/she will have a life-lasting problem, then adoption would be by far the better choice if trying to have a baby. But otherwise, as I've said a couple times now, there's no problem with trying to have a baby.
And, if you actually viewed the embryo/fetus as a human being - you wouldn't want people creating them with a huge chance that they would just die. Maybe said parents should adopt as well.
Same response.
You don't think corporations should be held responsible if their negligence kills someone?
My quote wasn't even talking about that. By the way, yes I do. That's why I later announced changing my mind about that. And as Puppet States said, they should be able to be sued for some kind of negligence. Not for criminal, but whatever applies to "faulty products." Just because they're not the ones who killed the babies.
You left a possibility out - let the mother die and save the fetus. It isn't as unusual as you might think - quite a few women have chosen to forgo chemo, even though their cancer was aggressive, until after birth. Often, they have died. But the baby had been brought into the world.
Ok, that's another option. Congrats on thinking of it.
If a mother is willing to be that selfless in order to save the baby, I would say go for it as long as it's not meant to be an excuse for suicide. Women who actually give up their lives to save their bab(y)(ies) are awesome moms and I applaud them for loving their babies enough to die for their survival. So yes I would approve of that if that's what you were asking.

The Nazz

15-03-2006, 02:49

I am pro-choice. Everyone please stop saying people like me are not. I am merely against "choice" regarding abortion. Your misuse of words is beginning to get on my nerves. We're talking about abortion, not choice in general.

So you're pro-choice, except when you're against choice. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

Choice, in this debate, refers specifically to the choice of a woman to have an abortion if she so chooses. If you're for outlawing abortion, then you are against choice in this debate. Deal with it.

New Rhodichia

15-03-2006, 03:09

So you're pro-choice, except when you're against choice. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

Choice, in this debate, refers specifically to the choice of a woman to have an abortion if she so chooses. If you're for outlawing abortion, then you are against choice in this debate. Deal with it.
I am against choice in this debate. That's what I said. Otherwise I am pro-choice. That is also what I said. With all due respect, deal with it.

Katganistan

15-03-2006, 03:12

People, DO NOT LINK TO PICTURES OF ABORTED FETUSES, WAR DEAD, OR ANY OTHER GORY SCENES OF MAYHEM. That is an INSTANT DEAT offense.

Use your keyboards to make your arguments; pictures and films of slaughtering animals, people, or fetuses are not allowed under the graphic clause of the FAQ and TOS.

And use some common sense; don't quote links to graphic photos.

The Nazz

15-03-2006, 03:18

I am against choice in this debate. That's what I said. Otherwise I am pro-choice. That is also what I said. With all due respect, deal with it.
Then kindly, in the course of this debate don't fucking say you're pro-choice, because you are certainly not.

New Rhodichia

15-03-2006, 03:25

Then kindly, in the course of this debate don't fucking say you're pro-choice, because you are certainly not.
As I said twice now, I am pro-choice. Just not for issues like abortion.

Now let's get back to the topic. Could I interest anyone in responding to what I said on I think page 10?

Puppet States

15-03-2006, 03:30

As I said twice now, I am pro-choice. Just not for issues like abortion.

Now let's get back to the topic. Could I interest anyone in responding to what I said on I think page 10?

Couldn't this just be rectified by dropping both of the euphemisms, pro-choice and pro-life? Each were concocted by their respective proponents to spin the issue and make them seem like they're the correct group.

Make it simple... pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Where you stand is thus clear. And you avoid the connotations that if you're not pro-choice, you must be anti-choice, and if you're not pro-life, you must be anti-life.

The Nazz

15-03-2006, 03:40

Couldn't this just be rectified by dropping both of the euphemisms, pro-choice and pro-life? Each were concocted by their respective proponents to spin the issue and make them seem like they're the correct group.

Make it simple... pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Where you stand is thus clear. And you avoid the connotations that if you're not pro-choice, you must be anti-choice, and if you're not pro-life, you must be anti-life.No, because to call me pro-abortion is incorrect. I don't like abortion, and would rather that there were far fewer than there are. In order to get to that point, I support much better sex ed, much better access to contraception, and much more openness about sexuality in general.

But regardless of how I personally feel about abortion, I am fully in favor of women having the choice to make whatever medical choices they deem necessary to their well-being. It's the ability to choose that is paramount to me, so I am pro-choice. Not pro-abortion--pro-choice.

And I make a big deal when people like New Rhodichia claim to be pro-choice, when they are in fact in favor of forced pregnancy and the enslavement of women, because they're not pro-choice, no matter how much they may claim to be so in other debates. If you're willing to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want, then you're not pro-choice, plain and simple, and it's bullshit to claim otherwise.

New Rhodichia

15-03-2006, 03:52

No, because to call me pro-abortion is incorrect. I don't like abortion, and would rather that there were far fewer than there are. In order to get to that point, I support much better sex ed, much better access to contraception, and much more openness about sexuality in general.

But regardless of how I personally feel about abortion, I am fully in favor of women having the choice to make whatever medical choices they deem necessary to their well-being. It's the ability to choose that is paramount to me, so I am pro-choice. Not pro-abortion--pro-choice.

And I make a big deal when people like New Rhodichia claim to be pro-choice, when they are in fact in favor of forced pregnancy and the enslavement of women, because they're not pro-choice, no matter how much they may claim to be so in other debates. If you're willing to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want, then you're not pro-choice, plain and simple, and it's bullshit to claim otherwise.
Enslavement? Yeah right, that's all I have to say about that.
The only reason I would "force" a woman to continue a pregnancy is because I believe it is highly immoral to do otherwise. And until someone is able to prove me wrong I will continue to believe that. Which brings my request around again. Does anyone have a decent argument against the one I had on page 10?

By the way let's just drop the whole euphemism issue and agree we can call it whatever we want. Sorry to bring the whole thing up. After reconsideration I dont really think it's worth arguing about for either side. Agreed?

The Nazz

15-03-2006, 03:58

Enslavement? Yeah right, that's all I have to say about that.
The only reason I would "force" a woman to continue a pregnancy is because I believe it is highly immoral to do otherwise. And until someone is able to prove me wrong I will continue to believe that. Which brings my request around again. Does anyone have a decent argument against the one I had on page 10?

By the way let's just drop the whole euphemism issue and agree we can call it whatever we want. Sorry to bring the whole thing up. After reconsideration I dont really think it's worth arguing about for either side. Agreed?
What argument? It's the same old anti-abortion bullshit. And when you tell a woman that she cannot do what she wishes with her body, then you have indeed enslaved her. Don't like it? Tough shit--that's the cold hard of it. You've told a woman she no longer controls her body, and that, by any definition, is slavery.

M3rcenaries

15-03-2006, 04:01

What argument? It's the same old anti-abortion bullshit. And when you tell a woman that she cannot do what she wishes with her body, then you have indeed enslaved her. Don't like it? Tough shit--that's the cold hard of it. You've told a woman she no longer controls her body, and that, by any definition, is slavery.
Ooo, by definition you are wrong.
1.The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2a The practice of owning slaves.
2b A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3 The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4 A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

Thriceaddict

15-03-2006, 04:03

Ooo, by definition you are wrong.

3 The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.

Seems to fit quite well.

M3rcenaries

15-03-2006, 04:04

Seems to fit quite well.
I think it meens like "A slave to alchol" because it says addiction, under the infuluence, etc.

New Rhodichia

15-03-2006, 04:05

What argument? It's the same old anti-abortion bullshit.
If it's so pitiful let's see a detailed analysis of it. Right now I'm just about ready to call what you said a sad excuse.
And when you tell a woman that she cannot do what she wishes with her body, then you have indeed enslaved her. Don't like it? Tough shit--that's the cold hard of it. You've told a woman she no longer controls her body, and that, by any definition, is slavery.
A fetus is not part of a woman's body. It is a seperate life she as a mother is responsible for, since she conceived it. If she really didn't want it she should have thought of that beforehand. And don't get angry about that because it makes perfect sense.

The Nazz

15-03-2006, 04:05

Ooo, by definition you are wrong.
1.The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

If you don't allow a woman control over her body, if you allow others to determine that she will bear a child against her will, then she fits into that category. She is as bound in servitude as any slave. She is the property of another, and it doesn't matter if that other is a person or the state--she is property, a baby-making machine, and nothing more.

The Nazz

15-03-2006, 04:08

A fetus is not part of a woman's body. It is a seperate life she as a mother is responsible for, since she conceived it. If she really didn't want it she should have thought of that beforehand. And don't get angry about that because it makes perfect sense.
No it isn't, no matter how much you say so, because you can't prove it is, and the burden is on you, since you're willing to enslave women and deny them self-determination as a result of it. The question of when life begins is a philosophical one, not an empirical one, and as a result, there can never be a definitive answer to the question. And if you don't have a definitive answer, then you don't have the right to enslave another to your will.

M3rcenaries

15-03-2006, 04:19

If you don't allow a woman control over her body, if you allow others to determine that she will bear a child against her will, then she fits into that category. She is as bound in servitude as any slave. She is the property of another, and it doesn't matter if that other is a person or the state--she is property, a baby-making machine, and nothing more.
Yet she willingly engaged in acts that could come in the likelyhood of a child. And who exactly is she a slave too, the state right?

The Nazz

15-03-2006, 04:22

Yet she willingly engaged in acts that could come in the likelyhood of a child.And? That gives the state the right to take her right of self-determination away?
And who exactly is she a slave too, the state right?
In a far greater way than that of any male citizen, if she is being forced to give birth.

Skibereen

15-03-2006, 04:29

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty? Yes. Outside where the law finds exigent or special circumstances, just like in all cases of homocide. It may decide that there lay some reasonable accomadation why one life may be taken in favor of another. Any other arguement somehow implies the mother's life is worth morethen the child's or rather the Mother's Convenience--as abortion is more often then not merely a convenience issue and the woman's health is in no immediate danger.

2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder? SEE ANSWER 1

3) How about her friends who know? SEE ANSWER 1

4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty? SEE ANSWER 1

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder? Only someone who has no understanding of the criminal system would use the term "murder"--typical of the pro-childkiller side. In this case it would be neglegent homocide unless intent was proven.
I am amused how quickly the childkillers embellish to make themselves seem sensible for calling the death of children a choice but resisting that idea fanaticism.

6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent? If he refuse to alter his behavior or remove himself from the house hold--yes, or wait I suppose smoking is a RIGHT now. I am a smoker by the way.

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide? SEE ANSWER 1, if the state fails to provide adequate provisions to ensure that mothers have at their disposal the best available pre-natel care then the failure can not fall squarely on the mother's shoulders.
If all manner of reasonable safety was afforded to her and she still makes the choice to act in an unhealthy fashion while another human life is reliant upon her---she has failed to meet the criterea for the exception in ANSWER 1.

8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged? If failing to meet the potential exception, yes of course--but this would mean giving the father rights--no woman wants that, they want men to be resposible only at their convenience.

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies? Yes, without exception.

10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable? SEE ANSWER 9

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder? Again, the stupid drooling masses usethe term murder. As it is stated there is no intent--so no Murder would not be a charge available to be sought. Simpltons.

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder? "Murder" I get more angry at how stupid this bitch every question. The supposition is absurd--was the power company held criminally liable during the Big Black Out in the Midwest and along the East coast when dozens of people died? No----Systemic Failure where all available precautions have (with in reason) have been taken do not a "Murder" make.

13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse? Under current typical Laws with in the United States ? NO. Morally if Laws protected the life of a child and not the convenience of a mindless tramp who cares nothing for defenseless child because she wants to smoke---yes.

14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?
Another absurd question. The mother has every right to protect her life, in fighting a disease she certainly can not be held liable for receiving medical treatment of said sickness.
Unlike the arguements of how it will effect a woman's "self image" if she carries to term.

15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder? SEE ANSWER 14---Stop pattin yourself on the backs these get more stupid as I go.

16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages? I think that would be reasonable if it was known at the time of said behavior that it could indeed lead to said disabilities.

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible? Pointless question.

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork? Do they reside in your home six months out of the year ? Do you pay to support them? Are they in school? What year were they born? Oh wait--they werent yet.
Pointless question--kill all the babies.

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed? Not familiar with the agency, got a link or phone number? Oh, and yes--she should.

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death? For no reason? No. For killing shildren because they are worried about their dress size, and stretch marks. Absolutely.
"As Molly notes, if you answer "no" to any of these questions, then you may well hate abortion with all your heart, but you don't really believe that the fetus (which, by definition in the South Dakota law is created at fertilization) is equal to a human being, and if that's not the case, then you can't honestly say that abortion is murder. This is the logical position that anti-abortion activists have put us all in."
Bullshit. You can answer "no" to anyone of these loaded questions and consider a fetus a human being. And you can honestly say abortion is murder.
I agree that certain people need killing. unborn children are never on that list.
Destroying a child before it has taken it's first breath just to keep some self centered female comfortable will never be anything less then murder.
The concept of reducing the child to less then human status only serves to remove the right of the father to protect his child.
If you left abortion just the way it was but recognized the fetus as a human fathers could get injunctions to protect their children from murderous vapid self centered whores.
That will of course never happen, better to kill a child then close your legs.
My answer to abortion is simple give the children up for adoption--dont say you cant give up your child because you are killing it.
All other arguements amount to ensuring a woman is "comfortable" over the life of a child---that is the hallow arguement, not defending a life that can not defend itself.

M3rcenaries

15-03-2006, 04:36

And? That gives the state the right to take her right of self-determination away?

Thats like saying its okay to commit a crime because if the state prevented it then theyd be infringing your right of self-determination.

The Nazz

15-03-2006, 04:39

Thats like saying its okay to commit a crime because if the state prevented it then theyd be infringing your right of self-determination.
It's not even close and you fucking well know it. Crimes are committed against the person or the property of another. Abortion is not, in any way, committed against the person or the property of another, unless the woman is indeed the property of either the father of the fetus or the state. In which case you've brought slavery back into play.

M3rcenaries

15-03-2006, 04:57

It's not even close and you fucking well know it. Crimes are committed against the person or the property of another. Abortion is not, in any way, committed against the person or the property of another, unless the woman is indeed the property of either the father of the fetus or the state. In which case you've brought slavery back into play.
You imply the fetus is the womens property, and since it has no choice otherwise; therefore it is in fact the slave in this situation. It will turn into a human, and at this phase in its development it has no choice but to suffer the consequences of the owner. And once again, I go to the women being the slave is complete nonsense. She took several deliberate steps to enter servitude. Slaves were either born into their condition, or through physical force entered it. slaves have no rights and are not allowed to function or standing in society. Whereas a woman with a child can function and become a member of standing in society. She would just be as much of a "slave" as any other person forced to follow any other law.

Dempublicents1

15-03-2006, 04:57

I had a long reply, but Jolt dropped it, so this is going to be the shortened version.

Technically, if a fetus is a human, then by the definition of the word "murder," they're right. It is an intentional (some overt act, as opposed to a muscle spasm or seizure, for instance) killing, of another human being (the fetus, if defined as a human) with malice aforethought (intent to kill).

I'm sorry, you're going to have to prove that all abortions have behind them malice and the intent to kill. I've never known a woman who had an abortion maliciously or with the intent to kill - most fully believed that there was nothing to kill yet.

What makes the claim a misuse of the word is that most states don't legally regard a fetus as a human being right now (but see the lacy peterson law passed by Congress... kill a pregnant woman, and you can be held accountable for the fetus' death too, so go figure). Change that, and it's a whole new ball game.

Note that the Peterson law and others like it have only ever been used in cases where a late-term pregnancy was involved. In other words, abortion would have been illegal, except extreme circumstances, at the time of the murder.

Does not feed and feeds unhealthy food are 2 very different things.

You said you don't know much biology, so let me explain. When a woman is pregnant, we often say she is "eating for two," but this isn't completely accurate. What a woman eats does not go directly to the embryo/fetus. It is digested and passed through the bloodstream. Thus, if a mother is not getting enough nourishment for herself, the embryo/fetus doesn't have a chance of getting enough. Not eating in a healthy manner could equate to not feeding the embryo/fetus, as the amount of nourishment it will get would be equivalent to a person with malnourishment. Show me a mother who can end up with a child that is malnourished and not be charged with anything.

Have you ever heard that pregnant women need folic acid in their diets, whereas normal adults can live with very little of it? Ever wonder why? It is because a developing embryo/fetus needs folic acid to properly develop. A lack of it could either lead to spina bifida (in which the bottom of the spinal cord is exposed, due to the bottom of the notochorn not closing) - possibly leading to paralysis or death, or could have an even worse condition in which the top of the notochord does not close - resulting in a fetus that does not develop a brain at all beyond (possibly) the brain stem.

Wrongful death is a tort, a civil as opposed to a criminal wrong. Murder is a crime. As the question asked about "mass murder," an analysis of wrongful death is irrelevant. You have also inserted the word "faulty" into the analysis. The question says only "product." If it was a true accident, and despite all due care being observed, the product "ignites a fire", then no, they cannot sue for wrongful death. There must at least be some negligence.

(a) If you think the wrong words are being used, perhaps you should inform people, instead of jumping all over their word usage.

(b) Actually, they can sue. They just won't be able to prove that it was the fault of the company. Meanwhile, if a product being used as directed causes a fire, you can be pretty sure it was faulty.

I consider myself part of the anti-abortion crowd, however, i do not side with the extreme.

Hey, me too. Of course I, unlike you, am pro-choice.

Thanks... as i've said it has been a long time since i've taken any sort of science class. I'd say they could be stored up until they are no longer viable with no problems.

If only that were a predictable time period....

Never cared for tax law, actually... but the presumption underlying it is that you must clothe, feed, house, and generally take care of your dependents.

But rarely, if ever, are you asked to prove these things, or provide evidence of how much you spent on them. It really only happens in joint custody cases.

Did you know that a completely independent college student can be claimed on his parents' taxes, so long as he does not claim himself? Perfectly legal.

I'm surprised you're bringing heroin and stuff into the question. Whereas smoking is legal, heroin is not. There's a difference.

Yes, but that difference is irrelevant. They are all things that one can be addicted to. Your statement was that the fact that she was addicted excuses her from any harm it may cause her embryo/fetus. Thus, you would have to excuse her from any harm caused by doing these things as well.

And for alcohol, you're not even supposed to have any to begin with during pregnancy. I don't know if that's actually an existing law, but it's far worse than smoking as far as I can tell. Not that I approve of smoking either.

No, it is not illegal. In fact, when I worked as a waitress, I could have been fired for refusing to serve alcohol to a pregnant woman. Luckily for me, I never ended up in that situation.

Smoking would have to be illegal in order to charge the woman with anything.

No, it wouldn't. I can be doing something perfectly legal and end up charged with manslaughter if someone is killed by my actions, so long as there was a reason for me to believe that someone might get hurt.

You were giving an example of you trying to acheive/receive something with the risk of expending someone's life. That is not what we are talking about.

Of course it is. Someone really, really, really wants to have a baby, but chances are that the embryo/fetus will not make it to birth. Thus, if an embryo/fetus is considered to be "someone's life", then a woman who is unlikely to carry a pregnancy to term will likely have to kill several people before she *might* actually have a successful pregnancy.

What we are talking about is trying to give someone life, with the risk of them not making it.

Oh, so you now state that the embryo/fetus does not yet have life?

Quite honestly I'm still not sure I know what you're talking about. What is so wrong with trying to have a baby?

Nothing, so long as you don't really think that the embryo/fetus is truly a human life. If it is, trying to have a baby under such a situation would most likely result in the deaths of lots of human beings.

Fetuses do not have all the rights a born person has.

We weren't talking about fetuses, but embryos. Of course, you are right, they do not.

But you have basically argued that they have the right to life, except they really don't. They only have the right to life if what is endangering them is politically expedient for you and isn't the result of a legal addiction.

After rereading what you originally asked I realized what you probably meant by controlling her body- making sure she takes care of the baby. That much I would agree with, assuming that's what you meant. I would have no problem with her being arrested, either. I was exaggerating when I said "just as wrong as killing the baby," but "controlling her body" can be bad as well, again depending on what you mean by control.

The only way to make sure that she did nothing to endanger her pregnancy would be to take her into custody under full watch, never letting her do anything without permission and escort. Thus, it would be controlling her body.

As I said, different rights are given and/or taken away to people depending on their age.

Even the right to life?

Key phrase there: The result is that the embryo/fetus... dies. So it is killing the unborn. This is the contradiciton I mentioned above.

It isn't a contradiction. If I make a choice to throw a homeless person out of my garage (perfectly legal) and he dies in the cold, the result of my choice is that he died, but I did not choose for him to die. I simply made the choice of how my property would be used.

A woman who terminates a pregnancy makes a decision about how her body will be used. She decides that it will not be used to house an embryo/fetus.

On the contrary, there are many photos with seemingly pained expressions on the faces.

Once again, you apeal to aesthetics rather than logic. How would an embryo/fetus feel pain if there is no nervous sytem? If there are no pain receptors? If there are no factors which would result in a pain response?

You know, Terry Schaivo made a lot of faces, but they were random. It didn't mean that she was aware or feeling pain, because when it came right down to it, she didn't have the capability for either. The same goes for an embryo/fetus during the period in which elective abortions are legal. It does not yet have the capability to feel pain, thus it does not.

I am pro-choice. Everyone please stop saying people like me are not. I am merely against "choice" regarding abortion. Your misuse of words is beginning to get on my nerves. We're talking about abortion, not choice in general.

We are talking about a specific issue - abortion. Thus, in this debate, you are anti-choice. Sorry, but that's how it goes.

Your statement here blows me away. If you are pro-abortion, you are a pro-abortionist (or pro-choice as you call it).

True, but I have met very few people who are pro-abortion. The only one I can think of on this board is Bottle, who thinks that women should have abortions much more often.

So by saying there was only one pro-abortionist in that thread, you are acknowledging everyone there agreed abortion is wrong. Including yourself, which sounds kinda contradictory if you ask me. Unless of course you're saying you were that one. The fact is however I was one of the few participants on that thread who were against abortion.

Actually, I am against abortion, as is Jocabia, as is Grave'n'Idle, and others who are pro-choice. I think that abortion is nearly always the wrong choice. However, I am not the pregnant person, so I am not the one to make the choice.

Yes. Ignorance is no excuse. There is no way she should indulge in whatever risky behavior so soon after "indulging" in the biological attempt for a baby. If she doesn't remember that night at all because she was high or something, then she should at the very least be prosecuted for being high. Maybe even for that and criminal negligence or whatever the charge would be.

Seriously, you should make up your mind. If you don't see the contradiction here, then logic is lost on you.

You don't think a woman who engages in behavior that could harm the "child" inside of her (ie. smoking, etc.) is criminally liable even if she knows she is pregnant, but you do think that she is criminally liable for such behavior before she knows?

I never said there was anything wrong with adoption. I just don't see what's wrong with trying to have a baby. Now if it's absolutely positive the baby won't survive or that he/she will have a life-lasting problem, then adoption would be by far the better choice if trying to have a baby.

So you have to be "absolutely positive" to kill someone for it to be a problem? Shooting a gun randomly into a crowd is ok, since it might not kill someone? Driving drunk is ok, since it might not kill someone?

Ok, that's another option. Congrats on thinking of it.
If a mother is willing to be that selfless in order to save the baby, I would say go for it as long as it's not meant to be an excuse for suicide. Women who actually give up their lives to save their bab(y)(ies) are awesome moms and I applaud them for loving their babies enough to die for their survival. So yes I would approve of that if that's what you were asking.

And would you, like other things you approve of, try to force the woman to do it?

Dempublicents1

15-03-2006, 05:01

People, DO NOT LINK TO PICTURES OF ABORTED FETUSES, WAR DEAD, OR ANY OTHER GORY SCENES OF MAYHEM. That is an INSTANT DEAT offense.

Just for clarification, are pictures of blastocysts ok? I certainly don't consider them graphic.

Couldn't this just be rectified by dropping both of the euphemisms, pro-choice and pro-life? Each were concocted by their respective proponents to spin the issue and make them seem like they're the correct group.

Pro-choice is hardly a spin. It is an exact description of my position in this matter.

Make it simple... pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

Wouldn't work. I am anti-abortion. I am also pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion.

The fact that I do not wish to force my moral viewpoints upon others through the law does not mean that I support any choice that they make.

The Nazz

15-03-2006, 05:06

You imply the fetus is the womens property, and since it has no choice otherwise; therefore it is in fact the slave in this situation. It will turn into a human, and at this phase in its development it has no choice but to suffer the consequences of the owner. And once again, I go to the women being the slave is complete nonsense. She took several deliberate steps to enter servitude. Slaves were either born into their condition, or through physical force entered it. slaves have no rights and are not allowed to function or standing in society. Whereas a woman with a child can function and become a member of standing in society. She would just be as much of a "slave" as any other person forced to follow any other law.Here's the thing--and you won't like to hear it. That little bundle of cells inside the woman--it may turn into a child. It may also spontaneously abort. It may cause the woman carrying it to die, or suffer tremendous harm to her health. But whatever it may do, there is no guarantee that it will turn into a living breathing human. Until it does, the woman should have the option to do with it as she pleases. Will I approve of the choices some women make? Certainly not. Some of them will undoubtedly raise anti-abortion douchebags. But it's not my body, and it's not my decision. I would no sooner tell a woman what to do with her body than I would allow a woman, or a man, for that matter, tell me that I had to impregnate a woman, or get a vasectomy. My body, my choice.

As to your so-called "counter" to the slavery situation--whether she may acheive standing in society is irrelevant. A woman who has been forced, against her will, to bear a child, has lost her ability to determine her personal medical choices, and is therefore enslaved, biologically, to the state or to her husband/mate. Dress it up however you want--if the reverse were true, if the male were still dominant politically and was the one who carried the child, abortion would be a sacrament.

Dempublicents1

15-03-2006, 05:11

Enslavement? Yeah right, that's all I have to say about that.

It gives one person or organization rights over the body of another. What do you call that?

The only reason I would "force" a woman to continue a pregnancy is because I believe it is highly immoral to do otherwise.

Some people think it is immoral for a woman to show her face in public. Does that mean they can force all women to wear burquas?

Some people think that it is immoral to have sex out of wedlock. Does that mean we can arrest everyone who has a one-night-stand?

Ooo, by definition you are wrong.
1.The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

This one applies, as the woman's body is being treated as the property of another.

4 A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.

This one would also work.

You imply the fetus is the womens property, and since it has no choice otherwise; therefore it is in fact the slave in this situation.

Not necessarily. But it is inside her property, and she thus has the right to remove it, just as I have the right to remove you from my house if you are there against my will.

And once again, I go to the women being the slave is complete nonsense. She took several deliberate steps to enter servitude. Slaves were either born into their condition, or through physical force entered it.

Not true. Throughout history, there have been societies in which a person would sell themselves into slavery - voluntarily entering it. That didn't make the idea that one person can own and control another human being right.

slaves have no rights and are not allowed to function or standing in society.

Again, not true in all cases. In Greek and Roman times, slaves actually had standing in society - sometimes higher than that of freemen who had little money. They had certain rights and could own property. The same is true of slaves in ancient Israel.

Whereas a woman with a child can function and become a member of standing in society. She would just be as much of a "slave" as any other person forced to follow any other law.

We aren't talking about a woman with a child. We are talking about a woman who is pregnant and having her body controlled by others for their own purposes. Telling someone that they cannot run a red light does not exert control over their bodies. Telling them that they must serve as incubators and will be charged with a crime otherwise does.

Katganistan

15-03-2006, 05:13

Just for clarification, are pictures of blastocysts ok? I certainly don't consider them graphic.

Just for clarification, ripped apart bodies and gore = bad. If a blastocyst is neither (and I think we can agree they are not), then they are ok.

M3rcenaries

15-03-2006, 05:18

Here's the thing--and you won't like to hear it. That little bundle of cells inside the woman--it may turn into a child. It may also spontaneously abort. It may cause the woman carrying it to die, or suffer tremendous harm to her health. But whatever it may do, there is no guarantee that it will turn into a living breathing human. Until it does, the woman should have the option to do with it as she pleases. Will I approve of the choices some women make? Certainly not. Some of them will undoubtedly raise anti-abortion douchebags. But it's not my body, and it's not my decision. I would no sooner tell a woman what to do with her body than I would allow a woman, or a man, for that matter, tell me that I had to impregnate a woman, or get a vasectomy. My body, my choice.

As to your so-called "counter" to the slavery situation--whether she may acheive standing in society is irrelevant. A woman who has been forced, against her will, to bear a child, has lost her ability to determine her personal medical choices, and is therefore enslaved, biologically, to the state or to her husband/mate. Dress it up however you want--if the reverse were true, if the male were still dominant politically and was the one who carried the child, abortion would be a sacrament.
I take your point on a miscarrige, however that has nothing to do with the womens choice in aborting the baby despite the fact that in the countries abortion is legal in, the infant mortality rate is rather low. I am for abortion if the womens life is in danger. And some of them will raise anti abortion douce-bags:rolleyes: . What if some of them rose brilliant minds that would benifit humanity? What if they rose caring individuals that helped out in their community? And she would still only be in an inslavement situation because she put herself there! And dont make this an arguement about feminism becuase it most certainly is not; being most pro-life people I know are women.

Grand Maritoll

15-03-2006, 05:23

As Molly notes, if you answer "no" to any of these questions, then you may well hate abortion with all your heart, but you don't really believe that the fetus (which, by definition in the South Dakota law is created at fertilization) is equal to a human being, and if that's not the case, then you can't honestly say that abortion is murder. This is the logical position that anti-abortion activists have put us all in.

Oh, really? Let's see...

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?

No. Women who have abortions should be treated as if they plead insanity at a trial. If they didn't think they were killing a human being, then they can plead insanity...

2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?

Not if he doesn't think it is a life, either. The problem here is that there isn't enough education. More than half of Americans don't think that a fetus is fully alive. In order for murder charges, this number must be changed drastically, to the point where as few Americans think unborn fetuses are alive as think fully grown adult humans are alive.

3) How about her friends who know?

See previous answers.

4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?

I sound like a broken record. Eventually, yes, but not before proper education is spread throughout the populus. Knowledge is power. This particular knowledge should be spread as quickly as possible.

5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?

Do people who smoke a pack a day get charged for murder if their coworker dies from lung cancer?

6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?

See pervious answer.

7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?

If a woman eats unhealthily and has a heart attack as a result, is she charged with attempted suicide*?

*Yes, sadly, that is actually a crime in many places...

8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?

See pervious answer.

9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?

If she had to choose between killing it herself (or rather, with a doctor) and it dying on it's own, it is a question about euthenasia, not abortion, correct? In my opinion, yes, because I despise euthenasia. But that isn't the topic at hand.

10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?

See previous answer.

11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?

Not murder, murder implies intent. Manslaughter should be the charge.

12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder?

See previous answer. Although don't power companies have insurance against that kind of thing, and shouldn't the fertility clinic have backup generators just like any other place with life support systems? So, in this case, most of the blame would be on the clinic.

13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?

Do doctors report smoking as child abuse with children that have already been born? If so, yes. If not, no.

14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?

The doctor should be charged with manslaughter. He should have used a different setting, one that would not kill the child. Also, the doctor should warn the mother of all the possible risks to her and the child.

15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?

Sorry, I answered this one with the previous question... so see previous answer.

16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?

Sure, I don't see why not. The mother should realize that she is dealing with a life, and I think the knowledge that what you do in pregnancy effects the unborn child is common knowledge.

17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?

I'm not up on the science of freezing embryos, but if the freezing effect is damaging over time, then yes.

18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?

Since they only rely on you for the energy required to keep them cold, as opposed to fed, watered, healthy, sheltered, etc., no.

19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?

If the child and the mother can survive the removal without significant risk of damage to the child or the mother during the removal, then yes.

20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death?

Hmm... your honor, the prosecutor is badgering this witness.

Puppet States

15-03-2006, 06:06

I'm sorry, you're going to have to prove that all abortions have behind them malice and the intent to kill. I've never known a woman who had an abortion maliciously or with the intent to kill - most fully believed that there was nothing to kill yet.

Please realize what i'm arguing here; i've never argued that as the law stands now, it's murder, and people who do so argue are legally wrong. And i must do so, because from a legal standpoint, no one could answer those questions affirmatively based on current law. Therefore, i'm working from an assumption that would create the best case scenario for those against legalized abortion: the law was changed by a hypothetical statute making a fetus a human being (i thought i typed that in my first post... but now i don't see it). As i said, as it stands now, and with a fetus not being regarded as a human, murder, by definition cannot occur. Murder = the 1.) intentional killing 2.) of another human being 3.) with malice aforethought. "3" is defined as the intent to kill or do great bodily harm, wanton/willful disregard of the natural consequences to cause death, and felony murder - e.g. a killing which occurs during the course of an armed robbery or kidnapping. Intent to kill in this regard is not to be confused with "intention to kill" used in 1. "1" would be best understood as an overt act (striking a person with a knife), as opposed to a failure to act (the man you want dead slips, cracks his head on the ground, and you stand there and watch him bleed to death, though you could call an ambulance and undoubtedly save him). "3" is best understood as intent to actually kill (e.g. a person stabs another in the chest with a machette, but if a person scratches the face of another, and it turns out the victim's a hemophiliac and he bleeds to death, the scratching person had no intent to kill... yet the killing which results would still be "intentional" for purposes of "1"). The intricacies with the definition could take up several months of law school... so for present purposes, suffice it to say this simplification will work.

Working off the assumption a fetus is a human, as a law might declare, however, changes things. If one seeks an abortion, one seeks to terminate the fetus. One would intentionally seek to kill the fetus. That is "intent to kill." Malice is therefore proved. Malice is not as in common usage, a synonym for wickedness. It is defined as the intent to kill or do great bodily harm, wanton/willful disregard of the natural consequences to cause death, and felony murder - e.g. a killing which occurs during the course of an armed robbery or kidnapping.

Unless one were to think it would be magically carried away somewhere... in which case, it's wanton and willful disregard for human life, and malice is therefore proved. Though there might be a diminished capactiy defense for that person. It is not a question of whether malice exists, it is a question of whether a human exists. And if the law were to declare a fetus a human, abortion would quite literally be murder.

Note that the Peterson law and others like it have only ever been used in cases where a late-term pregnancy was involved. In other words, abortion would have been illegal, except extreme circumstances, at the time of the murder.

But as written, it applies to all unborn children... gotta love those drafters in Congress. "(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." One would expect this to come up in the challenges to South Dakota's law... for if a fetus isn't alive, how can it die as the law implies it can?

You said you don't know much biology, so let me explain. When a woman is pregnant, we often say she is "eating for two," but this isn't completely accurate. What a woman eats does not go directly to the embryo/fetus. It is digested and passed through the bloodstream. Thus, if a mother is not getting enough nourishment for herself, the embryo/fetus doesn't have a chance of getting enough. Not eating in a healthy manner could equate to not feeding the embryo/fetus, as the amount of nourishment it will get would be equivalent to a person with malnourishment. Show me a mother who can end up with a child that is malnourished and not be charged with anything.

Have you ever heard that pregnant women need folic acid in their diets, whereas normal adults can live with very little of it? Ever wonder why? It is because a developing embryo/fetus needs folic acid to properly develop. A lack of it could either lead to spina bifida (in which the bottom of the spinal cord is exposed, due to the bottom of the notochorn not closing) - possibly leading to paralysis or death, or could have an even worse condition in which the top of the notochord does not close - resulting in a fetus that does not develop a brain at all beyond (possibly) the brain stem.

The terminology, it's a little foggy... the basic concepts of digestion and absorption and transfer i still remember. Could equate are the key words. If we're assuming a fetus is a human being, and you intentionally do not eat enough thereby causing death, if done intentionally or willfully/wantonly, then yes, i do believe a charge could be sustained. There was no crime of child abuse at common law (father is the head of the household and all, and those born out of wedlock were bastards by the law), so i'm afraid i have little in the way of legal argument (outside my rather odd state) on the child abuse crime in particular. Though it would depend on the definition of "child" in any abuse act.

(a) If you think the wrong words are being used, perhaps you should inform people, instead of jumping all over their word usage.

(b) Actually, they can sue. They just won't be able to prove that it was the fault of the company. Meanwhile, if a product being used as directed causes a fire, you can be pretty sure it was faulty.

(a) I did inform you, did i not? And i then identified why those slight variations make quite a bit of difference. It was a simple counter... no insult meant.
(b) "Fault" is proved via negligence. Negligence is conduct falling below the standard of care required. So in a true accident, where all due care was being observed, if the product starts a fire, there is by definition no negligence and therefore no fault. You could sue... it would get thrown out on summary judgment for failure to state a claim (because if you can't prove negligence, at least, you can't prove wrongful death, and the claim therefore has no merit) after the defendant files a response to the complaint.

If only that were a predictable time period....

Beats me... i'd think they have some sort of viability range figured out. But as pointed out, science isn't my field.

But rarely, if ever, are you asked to prove these things, or provide evidence of how much you spent on them. It really only happens in joint custody cases.

Did you know that a completely independent college student can be claimed on his parents' taxes, so long as he does not claim himself? Perfectly legal.

True... but just try to claim 15 dependents (or maybe more if more embryos are on ice). See how quick it takes the IRS find that person. Treasury Department issues a regulation as to what counts as a dependent (assuming Congress wouldn't act), and it's all but over. Deductions are usually treated very narrowly in construction. And with a statute pre-dating a declaration that a fetus is human, the IRS would argue obviously Congress didn't have them in mind when they drafted the portion of the code on dependents for tax purposes.

Pro-choice is hardly a spin. It is an exact description of my position in this matter. Wouldn't work. I am anti-abortion. I am also pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion.

The fact that I do not wish to force my moral viewpoints upon others through the law does not mean that I support any choice that they make.

Very right... in this matter. Both terms are spin, though. It's so that the other side is anti something that sounds pleasing. Both sides spun it by making their side be "pro," with its insinuations that those who are against are anti. Who would want to be called anti-life? Or anti-choice? I concede that pro- or anti-abortion is itself an oversimplification... i just thought of it and wrote it. I think more accurate terms would be pro-legalized-abortion and anti-legalized-abortion. That way, for those on the pro side, you don't support the act necessarilly, but you do suppport its availability. But then, that wouldn't give the proponents of each side anything to work off of or be able to be used to paint the otherside in a bad light... neither are very exciting or powerful terms, and their pretty neutral. But it does more clearly convey the message.

Muravyets

15-03-2006, 18:38

First of all, Muravyets, look at http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed= for the definition of homicide off of www.law.com. Check your sources, law.com should know what they're talking about regarding law.
You're funny. Did you happen to actually read the definitions in the law.com dictionary?

manslaughter: http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=manslaughter&type=1&submit1.x=76&submit1.y=13&submit1=Look+up

murder: http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=murder&type=1&submit1.x=59&submit1.y=9&submit1=Look+up

homicide: http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=homicide&type=1&submit1.x=0&submit1.y=0&submit1=Look+up

justifiable homicide: http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=justifiable+homicide&type=1&submit1.x=89&submit1.y=14&submit1=Look+up

self-defense: http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=self-defense&type=1&submit1.x=0&submit1.y=0&submit1=Look+up

It turns out I'm right -- again. Homicide is a legal term describing a crime, and there are circumstances under which it is not a crime for one person to kill another. Have a nice day.

(PS: I responded to your 20 questions but my post got nuked by the forum problems the other day. I didn't feel like writing it over again, but since you seem to be in a mood to mix it up, I guess I will. I'll post it later today. Hope you'll enjoy it.)

Dempublicents1

15-03-2006, 20:23

Not if he doesn't think it is a life, either. The problem here is that there isn't enough education.

Of course by "enough education", you mean, "enough people told to agree with my personal subjective viewpoint."

Do people who smoke a pack a day get charged for murder if their coworker dies from lung cancer?

If they actually caused the cancer and it could be traced back to them, they could be charged with manslaughter at the least. Of course, a coworker is not entirely and completely dependent upon the person's body for nourishment and can get away if he/she wants to.

If a woman eats unhealthily and has a heart attack as a result, is she charged with attempted suicide*?

This has nothing to do with the question. Harm caused to oneself through one's own choices is not comparable to harm caused to another person. A better question would be, "If a woman feeds her child unhealthily and her child dies of a heart attack, can she be charged?"

Do doctors report smoking as child abuse with children that have already been born? If so, yes. If not, no.

Are children who have already been born living inside other people and relying upon their bodily systems for nourishment?

The doctor should be charged with manslaughter. He should have used a different setting, one that would not kill the child. Also, the doctor should warn the mother of all the possible risks to her and the child.

You don't have the first clue what chemotherapy is, do you? Chemotherapy attacks the entire body and kills cells throughout it. We just hope it kills the cancer off before killing the patient. There are no "settings", just doses. You are thinking, perhaps, of radiation therapy?

Meanwhile, a pregnant woman is informed of said risks before undergoing chemotherapy, and can choose whether or not to have the treatments. Should she be forced to choose not to have them, possibly killing herself?

Working off the assumption a fetus is a human, as a law might declare, however, changes things. If one seeks an abortion, one seeks to terminate the fetus. One would intentionally seek to kill the fetus. That is "intent to kill." Malice is therefore proved. Malice is not as in common usage, a synonym for wickedness. It is defined as the intent to kill or do great bodily harm, wanton/willful disregard of the natural consequences to cause death, and felony murder - e.g. a killing which occurs during the course of an armed robbery or kidnapping.

You said something wrong in the second sentence. The purpose of an abortion is not to terminate the fetus, but to terminate the pregnancy. Termination of the fetus is a byproduct. A woman has decided that she does not want to be pregnant, for whatever reason, and the only way to make her not pregnant is to remove the embryo (most abortions)/fetus.

If I want someone out of my house, but they won't leave, I am allowed to use force to get them out, even to the point of deadly force if I feel threatened by their presence.

But as written, it applies to all unborn children... gotta love those drafters in Congress. "(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section." One would expect this to come up in the challenges to South Dakota's law... for if a fetus isn't alive, how can it die as the law implies it can?

If one looked at science, one could argue that it wouldn't apply where many think it does, because, throughout most of the pregnancy, it is technically incorrect to refer to a "child" in utero.

The terminology, it's a little foggy... the basic concepts of digestion and absorption and transfer i still remember. Could equate are the key words. If we're assuming a fetus is a human being, and you intentionally do not eat enough thereby causing death, if done intentionally or willfully/wantonly, then yes, i do believe a charge could be sustained. There was no crime of child abuse at common law (father is the head of the household and all, and those born out of wedlock were bastards by the law), so i'm afraid i have little in the way of legal argument (outside my rather odd state) on the child abuse crime in particular. Though it would depend on the definition of "child" in any abuse act.

What if one didn't eat or didn't eat well, not trying to harm the embryo/fetus, but knowing that harm can ensue? Woudln't that invoke manslaughter, as the negligent actions would cause the death?

(b) "Fault" is proved via negligence. Negligence is conduct falling below the standard of care required. So in a true accident, where all due care was being observed, if the product starts a fire, there is by definition no negligence and therefore no fault.

And, if all due care was not being observed - if the product itself, under normal use, was dangerous, then the company could be held liable - which is all I was saying.

Beats me... i'd think they have some sort of viability range figured out. But as pointed out, science isn't my field.

Not really. We don't really understand the process of freezing cells to that degree. I can freeze three batches of cells down the exact same way and end up with vastly different results on viability when I thaw them.

Very right... in this matter. Both terms are spin, though. It's so that the other side is anti something that sounds pleasing. Both sides spun it by making their side be "pro," with its insinuations that those who are against are anti. Who would want to be called anti-life? Or anti-choice? I concede that pro- or anti-abortion is itself an oversimplification... i just thought of it and wrote it. I think more accurate terms would be pro-legalized-abortion and anti-legalized-abortion.

If instead of "legalized", you said "legal", I could see that. Technically, "legalized" isn't a proper term when discussing the law. The default on any action is that it is legal. Only if there is a law against it would it become illegal. So, technically, something is either legal or illegalized/criminalized. If the system were the other way, we would have to have a law for every single thing that *is* legal - and that would be way too many laws.

Cabra West

15-03-2006, 21:01

I take your point on a miscarrige, however that has nothing to do with the womens choice in aborting the baby despite the fact that in the countries abortion is legal in, the infant mortality rate is rather low. I am for abortion if the womens life is in danger. And some of them will raise anti abortion douce-bags:rolleyes: . What if some of them rose brilliant minds that would benifit humanity? What if they rose caring individuals that helped out in their community? And she would still only be in an inslavement situation because she put herself there! And dont make this an arguement about feminism becuase it most certainly is not; being most pro-life people I know are women.

Do you honestly, seriously belief that a woman who doesn't want to have a child but is forced to have it, who sees her future, career, financial situation, relationship, family (pick any you like) ruined by the fact that society forces her to carry a pregnancy to term, will actually love and cherish the child? The chances that she would actually raise a well-adjusted, caring individual who's a benefit to society are close to zero.
I know I wouldn't. Force a child on me, and I can almost guarantee you it'll turn out to be the next Charles Manson...

Maineiacs

15-03-2006, 21:11

Do you honestly, seriously belief that a woman who doesn't want to have a child but is forced to have it, who sees her future, career, financial situation, relationship, family (pick any you like) ruined by the fact that society forces her to carry a pregnancy to term, will actually love and cherish the child? The chances that she would actually raise a well-adjusted, caring individual who's a benefit to society are close to zero.
I know I wouldn't. Force a child on me, and I can almost guarantee you it'll turn out to be the next Charles Manson...

Yes, but you see, you're just a woman. You don't have rights as far as their concerned. Does anyone else find ironic their attitude that the unborn must be protected, but once you're born, they don't care if you live or die? They only want to control others.

Quaon

15-03-2006, 21:43

I know. It's like "Great, your mother didn't abort you! Now I'm going to send you to die in Iraq! How moral I am!"

Muravyets

16-03-2006, 19:17

Dearest New Rhodichia,

Sorry for the extended delay, but if you're still interested, following are my responses to your answers to the topic questionnaire, as promised:

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
Under the legal system of the U.S., no. Do they deserve it? Pretty much. Again, look at those photos to see what they put their babies through.

We have already established that those photos have no meaning beyond shock value. There is no evidence of the context in which they were taken, nothing to make us conclude that any suffering was involved in them, and you yourself have admitted that abortion is not murder. Therefore no one was “put through” anything in those photos. I trust we’ve heard the last of them?
2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
Yes. The extent of his punishment should depend on his influence on the mother however (in terms of her choice to receive an abortion).
3) How about her friends who know?
Same as #2.
This is an interesting equivocation. How much influence is criminal influence? Are you proposing some kind of sliding scale of interpersonal influence? How will you determine the level of influence? Current laws for aiding and abetting crimes and for criminal negligence focus on actions, which can be observed and proved by witnesses and records. How do you intend to prove extent of influence of one person over another? Are you aware that spouses cannot be made to testify against each other? Same for doctors, priests and psychiatrists, all people who wield influence over others. Do you intend to do away with the privacy of these relationships? This goes to show that you’ve spent all your time soaking up the propaganda and very little actually thinking about how to fulfill your agenda and deal with the consequences.
4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
Provided they murdered enough babies, yes. I don't know if I consider one murder enough to deserve death or whatever. I think so, but I'll get back to you on that.
Since you first posted these, I notice you haven’t gotten back to us on this. So, how many fetuses do we have to abort before it counts as murder? If we were talking about real people, it would take only one. Interesting that you can’t come up with a number.
5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?
If she starts smoking during the pregnancy, she is excuseless and should be punished. If not, it is an addiction and there's not always something she can do about it, as sad as it is.
So she should be excused for killing her baby if she’s an addict? If addicts can get away with this, can they also be excused for lesser crimes? Can an alcoholic drive drunk, so that the more DUIs she has the less punishment she gets? Or should a heroin addict be allowed to rob people or engage in prostitution for drug money? They’re addicts, after all. They can’t help it, and if killing babies is okay, then what isn’t? Or is it okay because fetuses are not really people, and your real agenda is about the woman, not the fetus?
6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?
Not really. As a couple they're merely trying to have a baby, and the fact that the woman is a smoker is obviously a risk, but it's not like he's trying to kill the baby or something.
So he is under no obligation, as the father of a baby, to try to make sure that the baby he seems to want is born live and healthy? When we’re talking about real people, fathers are just as responsible for the well-being of their children as mothers are. Your statement makes sense only if the fetus is not a child, i.e. not a person, so there’s no person for him to protect.
7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?
I think it would depend on the situation.
Give it some thought. What foods do you think contribute to murder? Should supermarket cashiers be trained to watch for them? They could have a picture list like they do for the prices on exotic produce.
8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?
Knew... what? About her diet? He can't be held responsible for her mistakes. If he encourages her, however, to eat poorly, he is just as responsible. Perhaps even if he doesn't do anything about it. But again that would depend on the situation.
Well, if he lives with her, I would expect him to be aware of her diet, wouldn’t you? So what foods should he look out for in the kitchen cupboards? And if he is responsible for what he encourages her to do, should he also be barred from eating these foods to make sure he doesn’t give his wife access to them?

And I’d be interested to know how dietary regulations would be imposed, enforced, punished -- how many years imprisonment per Ho-Ho? I wonder if we might see a new version of the infamous “Twinkie defense.” After all, it’s illegal to poison real people, and if fetuses are people, then surely there would be arrests, and with arrests come trials and defenses.
9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?
No! She does not want the baby to die, she merely wants a baby and gets pregnant so she can have one. That's all.
10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?
If she shouldn't he shouldn't.
So it’s okay for them to sacrifice any number of babies for the sake pursuing their personal desires? They know they are a high-risk couple, that she is extremely unlikely to have a live birth and even less likely to have a healthy baby. They could adopt, but they just don’t want to. And you think this is okay? But if a woman with such a condition got pregnant and chose to abort rather than risk making a baby suffer because of her condition, that would be a crime, according to you. Letting babies suffer and die to satisfy a personal desire = OK. Aborting a pregnancy to prevent suffering = crime. That’s a terrific world-view you’ve got there -- plus it casts the fetus in the role of desireable possession, i.e. not a person.
11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?
Ummmm... no. Like it's really their fault the fire started, even if it's their product. Is this really one of your top 20 questions?
If their product started the fire because it was faulty, it most certainly would be their fault. If even just one real person, like a clinic staffer, died in the fire, the company might be criminally charged but certainly would be hit with a civil wrongful death suit by the staffer’s family. Are you saying families should not be able to sue for the wrongful death of embryos? Is that because they’re not people?
12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass always their fault the power went out. Even when it is they can't be held responsible if they're merely doing their jobs and have no idea about eh clinic. Unless of course their purpose was to kill those embryos. Which I doubt it would be.
Electric companies make special efforts to make sure power is not cut to hospitals because of the risk people might die. Are you saying they should not be required to make the same effort for fertility clinics? Is that because there are no people at risk? Large hospitals maintain their own emergency back-up generators in case of wide-spread outages. Should fertitility clinics also have to have them?

And this brings up a new question for me: Should embryos have insurance? What kind of insurance -- health or property? If they are people, it should be health insurance, and if they’re in the US where there is no national plan, should each embryo get its own policy or should insurers be required to cover hundreds of dependents for each adult policyholder? And how much liability insurance should the clinics carry? Typically liability insurance covers up to a million or two million dollars in anticipation of a person getting badly injured on their property, but if it’s possible for hundreds, maybe thousands of people to be injured or killed by one mistake in the storage room, well, how much money are we talking about here? In the real world, embryos are not people, and the clinics carry standard insurance against damage to property stored on their premises.
13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?
Pretty much the same as #5.
In real life, if a doctor observes signs of possible child abuse he is required to report it to the authorities. Are you saying the fetus is not a child and therefore there will be nothing to report, or are you saying this only applies to addicts who are allowed to abuse their children because of their addiction?
14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?
If it's required for her survival, I don't know. If not, I don't know. When it comes to the whole survival of the mother issue, I simply don't know where I stand. It's tough either way.
15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
Same as #14. I wish I could give an answer, but as I said it's tough either way.
Let me try to help you by posing a new question: If you were standing on a riverbank and saw a woman being swept away by the water, would you try to save her or would you wait to see if someone else might fall into the water after her? Whose “right to life” is more urgent -- the person who is in the world right now or the person who might come into it some day? The woman has a life of her own that she might lose. The fetus has no life of its own -- it is only syphoning life off of the woman. It can’t lose what it doesn’t have.

Your inability to answer #14 and #15 goes to show that (a) that no one but the people most directly involved can make these decisions, and (b) that you are really not so certain that fetuses are persons equal to born persons.
16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?
Yes. Most definitely. The phrase "negligent conduct" proves it. Would they have to? No, that would be pointless. But they should be allowed to.
There’s actually a problem with this question in that it’s not about fetuses. It talks about born children who have lives of their own, can experience the bad outcomes of others’ actions, and can express a desire for redress for themselves.

If we are talking about whether fetuses are people, a better question would be: If a pregnant woman engages in behavior that could harm her fetus, and tests prove that the fetus has indeed been harmed in utero, can another person bring a suit against the woman on behalf of the fetus, just as would be done for any other person who could not be personally present in court? In other words, can a fetus sue someone before a court of law?

And if a fetus can sue the woman who owns the uterus it is gestating in, can the woman countersue the fetus and get an injuction against it to make it stop using her uterus and other physical resources against her will and otherwise stop interfering with her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her own life? She could do that against any other intrusive person, like a neighbor, landlord or tenant. If the fetus can slap her with a suit, shouldn’t she be able to defend herself and even retaliate?

I don’t know if you really want to sell tort lawyers on the idea that fetuses are people.
17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?
If the embryos die or develop a disability, it is the person's fault. If they're fine, it doesn't matter.
Well, obviously, the longer they stay in frozen storage, the more likely they are to be damaged upon thawing, and equally obviously, no one will know until they get thawed for use, at which point it will be too late to do anything about it. So, are you saying yes, the owner of the 15 embryos should have to use them as soon as possible? How soon is that? Maybe insurance actuaries could generate a safe storage period during which there is an acceptably low statistical likelihood of damage to the embryos, and the law could require that they be used within that time frame. Of course, if time runs out, we are not allowed to destroy them because that would be killing people, right? So if it’s not possible for the owner of the embryos to use them all during the safe period, then someone else is going to have be made pregnant, right? How is that going to work?

Oh, and if the embryos suffer damage by freezing within the safe period, is anyone liable for that damage? I mean, they followed all the safety rules, right?
18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?
No- they don't depend on you. They depend on cold temperatures and the mahcine or whatever feeding them. If it's not a machine feeding them, I still say no because your job would be to feed them. Not your personal responsibility.
Right, they’re just getting taken care of by nobody for free. Uh-huh, yeah. Look, if they’re my embryos, I have to pay for their storage. That’s an expense, just any other family expense. And if embryos are people, and they are mine and nobody else is paying for them, then why can’t I declare them as my dependent children?

BTW, nothing feeds them. They are frozen. I’m paying for cold storage.
19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?
I think you all would know my answer to this. Just in case you don't I would say that removal would mean death for the fetus and you know it, so obviously I would object. She should be punished for whatever she does however (and the level of punishment would depend on what she does)
This has already been clarified, but I don’t think you’ve responded. Should a woman who is neglecting her pregnancy be charged with child abuse, incarcerated or put under house arrest until birth, and then should the baby be taken away from her? If you really think fetuses are people, this should be an easy yes for you. But I think we have already proven by your answers above that you don’t really think fetuses are people.
20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death?
If that's how many have abortions, then yes they all deserve imprisonment. I'm not sure where I stand with how extensive the punishment should be, but I would agree with imprisonment at the very least.
But we have already established that abortion is not murder and that even you would not extend the same rights of personhood to a fetus as to a born person. So what crime have these women committed and against whom?

NationStates Jolt Archive

Twenty Questions--Abortion Edition