Women's Lives Before Politics

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pat wrote:

In as much as the tsunami should be investigated for criminal activity for killing half a million people.[/quote]

Completely irrelevant. Humans don’t have and can’t have any agency for the creation of a tsunami. Not so with children in the womb. Women (and even men) can cause the women to miscarry. It could be stress, drugs, overtaxing physical work, intentional injury, the list goes on and on.

[quote]Just because nature can do things doesn’t mean you can do the same thing. Because a volcano erupts and wipes out a village, that isn’t permission to wipe out villages.

Nature kills people all the time. Doesn’t mean we can.[/quote]

A non-sequitur. Irrelevant, again. You don’t know if Nature caused the death or not until you investigate the cause of death. A miscarriage after fertilization represents the death of a child, by your own standard.

So, we must make an investigation to determine what caused the miscarriage. Under your theory.

82

Presumably a miscarriage is ‘investigated’ by a doctor providing after-care. Unless doctors are routinely not interested in why an expectant mother just lost her child. If not out of worry for what it might say about her health, alone.

83

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Presumably a miscarriage is ‘investigated’ by a doctor providing after-care. Unless doctors are routinely not interested in why an expectant mother just lost her child. [/quote]

But determining possible criminal culpability is not the job of the physician - it’s be the job of an investigating police officer and/or district attorney. A doctor would be a witness, but a doctor is not an agent of the state conducting law enforcement.

Again, every miscarriage represents the death of a child (under Pat’s theory, after fertilization). If that “person” is no different than a person outside of the womb in terms of legal rights - and Pat’s theory does not suggest otherwise - then a miscarriage warrants the same scrutiny as a dead person found in Central Park.

EDIT: forgot the underlined. Also, though, doctors might well be implicated in the homicide, so doctors have even less of a reason to be the “cop” in this situation.

84

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

But possible criminal culpability is not the job of the physician - it’s be the job of an investigating police officer and/or district attorney. A doctor would be a witness, but a doctor is not an agent of the state conducting law enforcement.[/quote]

And in case of miscarriage, there would be nothing to report.

85

[quote]pat wrote:

Nature kills people all the time. Doesn’t mean we can.[/quote]

Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan…

You can, and you do.

And its not as if the people killed where somewhere between a fertilized cell and a human being either.

86

[quote]Sloth wrote:

And in case of miscarriage, there would be nothing to report. [/quote]

Incorrect, women can miscarry for all sorts of reasons. What if a woman engages in too much physical work and causes a miscarriage? That’d be a basis for negligent homicide. What about the use of drugs while pregnanct, resulting in a miscarriage? Easily negligent homicide, quite possibly reckless manslaughter.

You (incorrectly) assume that miscarriages occur independent of the woman’s behavior, solely a function of an unfortunate natural event. It isn’t true.

87

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Incorrect, women can miscarry for all sorts of reasons. What if a woman engages in too much physical work and causes a miscarriage?[/quote]

Then it would be tragic, and I’d share in her grief for having lost her child. Much like a woman who goes to the curb for the mail, and comes back to a child who has killed itself via electrocution. Neglect? Sometimes it’s just a tragedy.

[quote]That’d be a basis for negligent homicide.[/quote] Only if you think outlawing abortion must result in arresting women who work ‘too hard’ while pregnant. We can save human lives while acknowledging tragic cases, with an appropriate bill/law.

[quote]What about the use of drugs while pregnant, resulting in a miscarriage? Easily negligent homicide, quite possibly reckless manslaughter.[/quote] Recreational use? Agreed.

88

Negligence laws.

A mother goes upstairs to change a shirt she just spilled tea on. The child takes a fork out of a drawer and sticks it into an electrical outlet. Negligence? Charge her? If not, remove negligence as a basis for charges?

89

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I thought partial birth abortions were alive and well in the US?[/quote]

Well, then - we’ll just chalk that up to one more thing you simply don’t know about American politics and law.[/quote]

In light of the last exchange, did/do you oppose the ban?

90

[quote]Sloth wrote:

We can save human lives while acknowledging tragic cases, with an appropriate bill/law. [/quote]

I don’t disagree with that - that’s my entire point, though. We already have that. All kinds of tragic events occur where a woman hasn’t done anything wrong and miscarries. The criminal laws already protect them from that.

Here’s the point - if children in the womb (right after fertilization) have the same Due Process rights as a child outside the womb, then they truly get the same rights. And a miscarriage - while tragic - represents the death of that child, and under an application of the same rights, society must (and needs to) make sure the event was, in fact, a regrettable tragedy and not the result of a criminal act.

Now, you’ve made a suggestion that we can pass an “appropriate bill/law” - that’s fine, but if it changes the rights afforded the unborn to something different than that of a born person, that’s a different story, and that difference must be recognized.

That’s entirely my point - it’s not the same. It’s sui generis - "unique, and not like other applications of rights. Of course we aren’t going to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide, but Pat’s absolutist position (not uncommon among pro-lifers) requires us to. But we can’t possibly have an apples-to-apples rights framework, so we shouldn’t pretend as if we do. We will and do have to treat the situations differently.

91

[quote]Sloth wrote:

In light of the last exchange, did/do you oppose the ban?[/quote]

The ban on partial birth abortions? Of course I do, it’s bararic.

As I said earlier, I am basically pro-life - I just recognize that the situation isn’t as simple as it is described by absolutists on both sides of the question.

92

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

We can save human lives while acknowledging tragic cases, with an appropriate bill/law. [/quote]

I don’t disagree with that - that’s my entire point, though. We already have that. All kinds of tragic events occur where a woman hasn’t done anything wrong and miscarries. The criminal laws already protect them from that.

Here’s the point - if children in the womb (right after fertilization) have the same Due Process rights as a child outside the womb, then they truly get the same rights. And a miscarriage - while tragic - represents the death of that child, and under an application of the same rights, society must (and needs to) make sure the event was, in fact, a regrettable tragedy and not the result of a criminal act.

Now, you’ve made a suggestion that we can pass an “appropriate bill/law” - that’s fine, but if it changes the rights afforded the unborn to something different than that of a born person, that’s a different story, and that difference must be recognized.

That’s entirely my point - it’s not the same. It’s sui generis - "unique, and not like other applications of rights. Of course we aren’t going to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide, but Pat’s absolutist position (not uncommon among pro-lifers) requires us to. But we can’t possibly have an apples-to-apples rights framework, so we shouldn’t pretend as if we do. We will and do have to treat the situations differently.[/quote]

I don’t know…T. One can recognize the fact the an embryo is a human life, outlaw abortion as a legal premeditated action, and understand that in a case such as a miscarriage, human ability is too limited to fashion laws that can distinguish between minutiae. There is no backing down from the position that the human embryo is an individual human life. It’s simply a fact regardless of scenario. Or, that human life is an unalienable right, unless you want to jettison any talk of ‘rights.’ However, recognizing limits of human discernment is very real. That the innocent will get caught up with the guilty. That’s why the movement is to outlaw abortion as a practice. I doubt Pat would disagree, had he the chance to respond to specific scenarios. Maybe he did, but I missed it.

93

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

In light of the last exchange, did/do you oppose the ban?[/quote]

The ban on partial birth abortions? Of course I do, it’s bararic.

As I said earlier, I am basically pro-life - I just recognize that the situation isn’t as simple as it is described by absolutists on both sides of the question.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m confused. Of course you oppose the ban, or oppose the practice? Unless corrected, I assume the practice. In which case, the same questions you’ve asked of us, is then asked of you. But first, do you oppose it because a human life is taken?

A woman is ‘working too hard,’ late-term. Let’s say she was trying to put a few things away in the attic. She falls off the ladder. Or maybe just the exertion of collecting items, and then running them up and down the stairs triggers a miscarriage and delivery. Are pro-lifers seeking her arrest? Are you? Is that the reality of having banned partial birth abortions?

I’ve never met a single pro-life person (and I am literally surrounded by them in my Church, family, circle of friends, causes, and preferred social media), who would arrest her. Tragic and impossible scenarios didn’t stop the partial birth abortion ban. Nor should it have. And there is no movement to harass or arrest the lady above. They’d be the first express their sympathies, if anything.

Edit: Not a perfect comparison. But are we chasing down women who fell off ladders, miscarried and delivered, and then investigating if the delivery came first?

94

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

In light of the last exchange, did/do you oppose the ban?[/quote]

The ban on partial birth abortions? Of course I do, it’s bararic.

As I said earlier, I am basically pro-life - I just recognize that the situation isn’t as simple as it is described by absolutists on both sides of the question.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m confused. Of course you oppose the ban, or oppose the practice? Unless corrected, I assume the practice. In which case, the same questions you’ve asked of us, is then asked of you. But first, do you oppose it because a human life is taken?

A woman is ‘working too hard,’ late-term. Let’s say she was trying to put a few things away in the attic. She falls off the ladder. Or maybe just the exertion of collecting items, and then running them up and down the stairs triggers a miscarriage. Are pro-lifers seeking her arrest? Are you? Is that the reality of having banned partial birth abortions?

I’ve never met a single pro-life person (and I am literally surrounded by them in my Church, family, circle of friends, causes, and preferred social media), who would arrest her. Tragic and impossible scenarios didn’t stop the partial birth abortion ban. Nor should it have. And there is no movement to harass or arrest the lady above. They’d be the first express their sympathies, if anything.

Edit: Forget the extraction part, I’m just comparing the timing in the term.[/quote]

If you drop your child down the stairs and they die, you generally get arrested/charged/etc. The point here is that if you insist on treating the unborn exactly as a person that has been born, you must extend all normal protocols to the unborn in the event of death.

95

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

In light of the last exchange, did/do you oppose the ban?[/quote]

The ban on partial birth abortions? Of course I do, it’s bararic.

As I said earlier, I am basically pro-life - I just recognize that the situation isn’t as simple as it is described by absolutists on both sides of the question.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m confused. Of course you oppose the ban, or oppose the practice? Unless corrected, I assume the practice. In which case, the same questions you’ve asked of us, is then asked of you. But first, do you oppose it because a human life is taken?

A woman is ‘working too hard,’ late-term. Let’s say she was trying to put a few things away in the attic. She falls off the ladder. Or maybe just the exertion of collecting items, and then running them up and down the stairs triggers a miscarriage. Are pro-lifers seeking her arrest? Are you? Is that the reality of having banned partial birth abortions?

I’ve never met a single pro-life person (and I am literally surrounded by them in my Church, family, circle of friends, causes, and preferred social media), who would arrest her. Tragic and impossible scenarios didn’t stop the partial birth abortion ban. Nor should it have. And there is no movement to harass or arrest the lady above. They’d be the first express their sympathies, if anything.

Edit: Forget the extraction part, I’m just comparing the timing in the term.[/quote]

If you drop your child down the stairs and they die, you generally get arrested/charged/etc. The point here is that if you insist on treating the unborn exactly as a person that has been born, you must extend all normal protocols to the unborn in the event of death.[/quote]

Read my reedit. Was composing and watching the news. If a pregnant woman falls down the stairs, miscarries and delivers at the bottom of the stairs…

There is no pro-life movement harrasing the woman because she may have delivered first, and then taken a tumble in order to paint a different picture.

96

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

In light of the last exchange, did/do you oppose the ban?[/quote]

The ban on partial birth abortions? Of course I do, it’s bararic.

As I said earlier, I am basically pro-life - I just recognize that the situation isn’t as simple as it is described by absolutists on both sides of the question.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m confused. Of course you oppose the ban, or oppose the practice? Unless corrected, I assume the practice. In which case, the same questions you’ve asked of us, is then asked of you. But first, do you oppose it because a human life is taken?

A woman is ‘working too hard,’ late-term. Let’s say she was trying to put a few things away in the attic. She falls off the ladder. Or maybe just the exertion of collecting items, and then running them up and down the stairs triggers a miscarriage. Are pro-lifers seeking her arrest? Are you? Is that the reality of having banned partial birth abortions?

I’ve never met a single pro-life person (and I am literally surrounded by them in my Church, family, circle of friends, causes, and preferred social media), who would arrest her. Tragic and impossible scenarios didn’t stop the partial birth abortion ban. Nor should it have. And there is no movement to harass or arrest the lady above. They’d be the first express their sympathies, if anything.

Edit: Forget the extraction part, I’m just comparing the timing in the term.[/quote]

If you drop your child down the stairs and they die, you generally get arrested/charged/etc. The point here is that if you insist on treating the unborn exactly as a person that has been born, you must extend all normal protocols to the unborn in the event of death.[/quote]

Read my reedit. Was composing and watching the news. If a pregnant woman falls down the stairs, miscarries and delivers at the bottom of the stairs…

There is no pro-life movement harrasing the woman because she may have delivered first, and then taken a tumble in order to paint a different picture.
[/quote]

It’s not about her delivering first…

It’s about the logical inconsistancies.

97

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

In light of the last exchange, did/do you oppose the ban?[/quote]

The ban on partial birth abortions? Of course I do, it’s bararic.

As I said earlier, I am basically pro-life - I just recognize that the situation isn’t as simple as it is described by absolutists on both sides of the question.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m confused. Of course you oppose the ban, or oppose the practice? Unless corrected, I assume the practice. In which case, the same questions you’ve asked of us, is then asked of you. But first, do you oppose it because a human life is taken?

A woman is ‘working too hard,’ late-term. Let’s say she was trying to put a few things away in the attic. She falls off the ladder. Or maybe just the exertion of collecting items, and then running them up and down the stairs triggers a miscarriage. Are pro-lifers seeking her arrest? Are you? Is that the reality of having banned partial birth abortions?

I’ve never met a single pro-life person (and I am literally surrounded by them in my Church, family, circle of friends, causes, and preferred social media), who would arrest her. Tragic and impossible scenarios didn’t stop the partial birth abortion ban. Nor should it have. And there is no movement to harass or arrest the lady above. They’d be the first express their sympathies, if anything.

Edit: Forget the extraction part, I’m just comparing the timing in the term.[/quote]

If you drop your child down the stairs and they die, you generally get arrested/charged/etc. The point here is that if you insist on treating the unborn exactly as a person that has been born, you must extend all normal protocols to the unborn in the event of death.[/quote]

Nobody is arguing to treat the situation as the same. That’s misdirection. Only that the premeditated act of abortion must be illegal. The pro-life movement understands all too well the natural confounding circumstances that would ensnare innocent and guilty alike in case of miscarriage. That’s why the movement is about outlawing abortion. I’ve a right to my life. That certainly includes my time. Yet, I’m guilty of not feeding an infant in my care, though I must spend my time doing so. On the otherhand, I’m not guilty of having gone into the kitchen to answer the telephone, missing that a child just stuck a metal object in a wall socket, killing the child, all in 10 seconds. That’s tragedy. An elderly father has a heart attack while the son is doing laundry in the basement. Maybe he actually watched his father die, having been pissed off with him over a proposed last will and testament?

We already factor in limitations to ‘neglect.’ In the case of miscarriage it becomes murkier. Almost inseparable, because of a natural order outside of human design. But, none of it changes the fact that an individual human life is taken in the practice of abortion, which the pro-life movement is dealing with. No, we don’t have to treat a miscarriage like a crime scene in order to outlaw abortion. I can chew bubblegum and walk at the same time, can you?

98

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

In light of the last exchange, did/do you oppose the ban?[/quote]

The ban on partial birth abortions? Of course I do, it’s bararic.

As I said earlier, I am basically pro-life - I just recognize that the situation isn’t as simple as it is described by absolutists on both sides of the question.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m confused. Of course you oppose the ban, or oppose the practice? Unless corrected, I assume the practice. In which case, the same questions you’ve asked of us, is then asked of you. But first, do you oppose it because a human life is taken?

A woman is ‘working too hard,’ late-term. Let’s say she was trying to put a few things away in the attic. She falls off the ladder. Or maybe just the exertion of collecting items, and then running them up and down the stairs triggers a miscarriage. Are pro-lifers seeking her arrest? Are you? Is that the reality of having banned partial birth abortions?

I’ve never met a single pro-life person (and I am literally surrounded by them in my Church, family, circle of friends, causes, and preferred social media), who would arrest her. Tragic and impossible scenarios didn’t stop the partial birth abortion ban. Nor should it have. And there is no movement to harass or arrest the lady above. They’d be the first express their sympathies, if anything.

Edit: Forget the extraction part, I’m just comparing the timing in the term.[/quote]

If you drop your child down the stairs and they die, you generally get arrested/charged/etc. The point here is that if you insist on treating the unborn exactly as a person that has been born, you must extend all normal protocols to the unborn in the event of death.[/quote]

Read my reedit. Was composing and watching the news. If a pregnant woman falls down the stairs, miscarries and delivers at the bottom of the stairs…

There is no pro-life movement harrasing the woman because she may have delivered first, and then taken a tumble in order to paint a different picture.
[/quote]

It’s not about her delivering first…

It’s about the logical inconsistancies.[/quote]

What logical inconsistencies?

99

The logical ball drop is in the implication that we can’t acknowledge the individual human life in the womb, when science has answered that question. Pat simply stated what embryology tells us. Anything else is flat-earth like territory. 9-11 troofer weekend structural engineer, stuff. The logical failing continues when it is implied that in acknowledging this truth, we can’t recognize the confounding limitations of a natural order of things when it comes to miscarriage. That is, sweeping up the innocent with the truly guilty. Well no, we can recognize those limitations to human law, AND still outlaw the practice of abortion.

100

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Sorry, I’m confused. Of course you oppose the ban, or oppose the practice? Unless corrected, I assume the practice. [/quote]

Sorry for any confusion, I misread your question - I support the ban, and believe the practice to be barbaric.

[quote]A woman is ‘working too hard,’ late-term. Let’s say she was trying to put a few things away in the attic. She falls off the ladder. Or maybe just the exertion of collecting items, and then running them up and down the stairs triggers a miscarriage and delivery. Are pro-lifers seeking her arrest? Are you? Is that the reality of having banned partial birth abortions?

I’ve never met a single pro-life person (and I am literally surrounded by them in my Church, family, circle of friends, causes, and preferred social media), who would arrest her. Tragic and impossible scenarios didn’t stop the partial birth abortion ban. Nor should it have. And there is no movement to harass or arrest the lady above. They’d be the first express their sympathies, if anything.[/quote]

But you’re missing the point - the unborn deserves a vindication of his/her rights regardless of whether sympathetic bystanders wouldn’t arrest her. It isn’t a matter of sympathy - it’s a matter of rights.

And, if the unborn (beginning after fertilization) have the same rights as the born, then a miscarriage invites the same investigation as the dead guy in Central Park. And perhaps 99% of investigations demonstrate that the miscarriage was simply a tragic event that was no one’s fault…but no matter: the inquiry into foul play must be done…if the rights are identical.