Women's Lives Before Politics

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Nobody is arguing to treat the situation as the same. That’s misdirection. Only that the premeditated act of abortion must be illegal.[/quote]

You have to, if the rights are the same. Unless you are prepared to abolish negligent homicide, etc. for the entire population.

And here’s the inconsistency - you say “nobody is arguing to treat the situation as the same”, i.e., the situations are different…yet, your premise is that the affirmation of rights is the same situation.

I’m saying, yes, we have to treat the situation differently, because, yes, the affirmation of rights is also different.

But these examples miss the point - there are times when a parent’s negligence could result in the death of a child, and in those cases, there is criminal culpability. You’re simply given examples of attenuated connections to guilt - well, that doesn’t absolve the situations when the connections are not so attenuated.

And if the unborn (right after fertilization) enjoy the rights of the born, those attenuated connections are put before a jury to determine. And before that can happen, the same procedure must take place (i.e., the state tries to investigate to see if they can get enough evidence to convict).

Sure we do, under yours and Pat’s theory of when a life deserves protection. Every time you have a potential homicide, you run the range of first degree down to negligent homicide, with gradations in between.

Despite the fact that, by your own lights, the rights are no different, you want to arbitrarily remove the standard rights-determination and criminal culpability for everything except premeditated murder (i.e., abortion). Well, if the rights are, in fact, the same, you don’t have a basis for allowing all the lesser gradations of criminal behavior w/r/t loss of human life off the hook - a woman could very easily negligently kill her unborn child.

It’s not pretty, but that’s the logic of your position.

102

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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.[/quote]

So we must bring her into the station because of the partial ban abortion act, which you support? I’m lost. Surely, you already see the ability to discern between the act of abortion and a miscarriage, with your support of the ban?

The unborn child has all the rights we do. The basis for our law says we’re endowed them by our Creator, in fact. They’re unalienable. That doesn’t mean human beings have an infinite ability to apply law. At exactly what amount of time does loss of visual contact with one’s child become neglect? Yeah, you pick a number. But it’s all you have done, picked a number. It’s even murkier in utero, T-bolt. Human law can’t reliably deal with miscarriages. With the actual practice of Abortion? Absolutely. I’m seriously lost as to why you’re asking me, when you must have answered this for yourself in your support of the partial birth ban. No?

The random dead Somalian in a park, in Somalia, has the same right to life as me and the dead guy in Central Park. Yet limitations put constraints on investigations there, keeping them here. “American criminal law doesn’t deal with the random murder of a Somalian!” Well, of course, because as human beings we are limited.

103

[quote]Sloth wrote:

So we must bring her into the station because of the partial ban abortion act, which you support? I’m lost. [/quote]

This has nothing to do with the partial ban abortion act. Ignore it.

It’s factual question - it’s done all the time. That’s what juries are for, Sloth - they decide “murky” facts and apply them to see if someone goes off to jail or not.

Why not? A blood test and questioning under oath? Sure, you can get there. You mean to tell the inconvenience of the mother is enough to forfeit an investigation into child’s death?

My problem is that your declaration of absolute rights aren’t connecting up with your proposed vindication of those absolute rights.

Not sure where you are headed with this, but yes, if a Somalian is found dead in Central Park, then the state of New York can very easily deal with his murder, because is is matter of jurisdiction. Same would be true for investigation of a miscarriage.

104

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Nobody is arguing to treat the situation as the same. That’s misdirection. Only that the premeditated act of abortion must be illegal.[/quote]

You have to, if the rights are the same. Unless you are prepared to abolish negligent homicide, etc. for the entire population.

And here’s the inconsistency - you say “nobody is arguing to treat the situation as the same”, i.e., the situations are different…yet, your premise is that the affirmation of rights is the same situation.

I’m saying, yes, we have to treat the situation differently, because, yes, the affirmation of rights is also different.

But these examples miss the point - there are times when a parent’s negligence could result in the death of a child, and in those cases, there is criminal culpability. You’re simply given examples of attenuated connections to guilt - well, that doesn’t absolve the situations when the connections are not so attenuated.

And if the unborn (right after fertilization) enjoy the rights of the born, those attenuated connections are put before a jury to determine. And before that can happen, the same procedure must take place (i.e., the state tries to investigate to see if they can get enough evidence to convict).

Sure we do, under yours and Pat’s theory of when a life deserves protection. Every time you have a potential homicide, you run the range of first degree down to negligent homicide, with gradations in between.

Despite the fact that, by your own lights, the rights are no different, you want to arbitrarily remove the standard rights-determination and criminal culpability for everything except premeditated murder (i.e., abortion). Well, if the rights are, in fact, the same, you don’t have a basis for allowing all the lesser gradations of criminal behavior w/r/t loss of human life off the hook - a woman could very easily negligently kill her unborn child.

It’s not pretty, but that’s the logic of your position.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m lost. Are we dragging women post-miscarriage and spontaneous delivery in front of juries, with the passage of the Partial birth ban? A ban you supported.

To be pro-life is to recognize the child in the womb as a human life. As human life, it’s obviously living that whole unalienable right to life deal. Already. So, you say you’re pro-“life,” without the recognition of an actual human life, therefore, the absence of the RIGHT to life" Or have I misinterpreted where the basis of your questions? As a pro-lifer I say the unborn has a right to life. And, as a pro-lifer you say, what, exactly?

105

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

This has nothing to do with the partial ban abortion act. Ignore it.[/quote]

Well yes, it does. Somehow you reconciled exactly what I’m arguing in your support of partial ban abortions. In your support of partial ban abortions, and in application of that law, did you support dragging women who’ve experienced late-term miscarriage with delivery into court? To grill them in interrogation, even prior to that? No, Thunder, the same questions come up. Edit: If you didn’t support such, yet supported the ban, you’ve already accepted my argument. But for whatever reason, won’t apply it to the unborn that never breached by miscarriage or abortion.

Sigh. Dead random Somalian, in Somalia. Surely, you recognize he has a right to life. I would hope so. Yet you’d limit the reach of the law, due to limitations. Unless of course you’d argue that since he had a right to his life, you’d send out the FBI for every reported death around the world.

106

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Sorry, I’m lost. Are we dragging women post-miscarriage and spontaneous delivery in front of juries, with the passage of the Partial birth ban? A ban you supported. [/quote]

As I said earlier, this has nothing to do with the partial birth ban - I am not sure why you are referring to it.

It has to do with the interaction between criminal culpability and the rights of the unborn if we adopt Pat’s view. If these unborn children have absolute rights, then society has an obligation to the same absolute vindication of those rights by and through the same procedures that a born person would be entitled.

The basis of my questions was to show that what we are dealing is, in fact, not the same. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think the unborn isn’t deserving of protection or the entitlement of rights, but when pro-lifers stick to “absolute certainty”, I think they wind up shooting themselves in the foot because they demand absolute rights, but have to qualify enforcement of those rights in a way that doesn’t make logical (or morally consistent) sense.

I have no interest in investigating miscarriages for possible homicide, but under the logic of Pat’s framework, even a woman who miscarries in the first trimester could, in fact, be criminally responsible for the death of the child. What if a woman uses drugs a week after fertilization and loses the baby? Under Pat’s framework, how is that not criminally culpable? And how would you know unless you conducted an investigation into the facts?

107

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Well yes, it does. Somehow you reconciled exactly what I’m arguing in your support of partial ban abortions. In your support of partial ban abortions, and in application of that law, did you support dragging women who’ve experienced late-term miscarriage with delivery into court? To grill them in interrogation, even prior to that? No, Thunder, the same questions come up. Edit: If you didn’t support such, yet supported the ban, you’ve already accepted my argument. But for whatever reason, won’t apply it to the unborn that never breached by miscarriage or abortion. [/quote]

With due respect, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t support “partial ban abortions” - I support the ban on partial birth abortions.

Secondly, I am not applying that law - I am applying ordinary criminal laws that apply to homicide. I have never once referred to or applied the partial birth abortion ban.

In fact, the partial birth abortion is completely irrelevant to my point, because it’s superfluous to my point - regular criminal laws will do. The only reason there is a partial birth abortion ban is to work around the (dubious, yet existent) constitutionally-protected right to abortion.

I am assuming we have no such constraints. Abortion is easily covered by murder statutes, etc.

Sure, there are some limitations as to jurisdiction - so what? Limitations are balanced against needs. An investigation into a miscarriage, as mentioned earlier, requires a blood test and a witness interview. How is that different than any other investigation of any other crime? Why would we limit that investigation when such important rights are at stake?

If a mom was a person of interest in the death of her born child, would you limit investigation into her culpability because it was “hard” for her?

108

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

With due respect, I have no idea what you’re talking about. I don’t support “partial ban abortions” - I support the ban on partial birth abortions.[/quote]

Mistypes, Thunder. I type hastily, admittedly, in short breaks from studying at my desk. I try to edit what I catch later. But, I rarely proofread the first post outside of a passing glance.

I know. I am asking you point blank, did the partial birth ban, change investigations into miscarriages that involved delivery?

109

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I think that line can be drawn with pretty good precision. Once the egg is fully fertalized, it is a human organism, where as prior to that, neither part are on their own human organisms. Even if you still consider that line fuzzy, you are talking a matter of hours, not days or weeks. [/quote]

Ok, so at any point after the egg is fully fertilized, if a woman miscarries, should the event be investigated as a possible homicide or for the involvement of foul play?[/quote]

You asked, at ANY point after fertilization should a miscarriage be investigated as a possible homicide. So I’m asking, did the Partial Birth ban, which you supported, do just that? Was it already? How did investigations change? That is what I’m trying to get answered.

110

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

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.
[/quote]

Thunderbolt, you seem to miss that one can recognize that the unborn human life has the rights of a born human life, yet understand that the only way to protect them in the maximum amount of cases is to recognize how far the law can reach, how much it can protect. What it, the law, can do practically. If a homicide investigation is launched with every miscarriage, you risk counter-laws that overturn the premise for anti-abortion laws. To quibble over how hard a pregnant woman worked doesn’t protect the maximum of lives from abortion. And yes, despite your insistence, I can recognize that the unborn human life has all the rights ENDOWED to it , WHILE recognizing that in this limited and physical world, the law can only reach so far before it becomes counter-productive. Some crimes, if one is present, will have to be dealt with outside of any human jurisdiction. With that, I can support legislation that accomplishes the end of the legal practice of abortion without ‘shooting myself in the foot.’

This isn’t Minority Report with pre-cogs that truly can’t lie. There are limitations to what we can know (negligence instead of tragedy). And yes, pregnancy is inherently murky. Leaving one’s child to in a hot, locked, car for hours is a lot more evident than if an expectant mother ‘neglectfully’ worked too hard. Not being a doctor herself, or having a live-in doctor (or even despite having one), perhaps completely unreasonable as to when work becomes ‘worked too hard.’

I can know one thing, and craft (or really, support) bills that reflect reality. As I said earlier, I can chew bubble-gum and walk at the same time.

Class early in the morning, off to bed.

111

Wow.

112

Bow-[quote]-Wow. Gambit_Lost wrote

[/quote]

113

This is a great discussion guys.

114

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Thunderbolt, you seem to miss that one can recognize that the unborn human life has the rights of a born human life, yet understand that the only way to protect them in the maximum amount of cases is to recognize how far the law can reach, how much it can protect. What it, the law, can do practically. If a homicide investigation is launched with every miscarriage, you risk counter-laws that overturn the premise for anti-abortion laws. To quibble over how hard a pregnant woman worked doesn’t protect the maximum of lives from abortion.[/quote]

But you’ve missed the point. If the unborn are entitled to those rights, there’s really no such thing as abortion - it’s just another form of murder. And so there would be no need to take special steps to outlaw abortion - it’s already outlawed.

That is entirely my point. Under Pat’s framework, a life is a life is a life, and is entitled to the same rights. That’s fine. But on one hand you agree with that idea - again, which is fine - and on the other, you want to carve out a number of special exceptions, circumstances, applications, etc. that undermine your claim that “a life is a life is a life, and is entitled to the same rights.”

There’s no need, and in fact, if “a life is a life is a life, and is entitled to the same rights,” we aer required as society to make those absolute rights are vindicated.

There’s no need to worry about “counter-laws” to be passed to overturn anti-abortion laws - my hypothetical is, as stated earlier, operating in a framework where Pat’s (and your) position controls.

But you still haven’t provided a practical reason why we can’t investigate miscarriages. I’ve said it multiple times: a blood test and an interview. How is that different from another investigation of a crime?

No, you aren’t recognizing practical obstacles, you are recognizing ethical ones. But you’ve already decided the controlling ethic: an unborn child has the same rights, and it is one we have to apply consistently and morally across the same situation.

So can I - make it a legal requirement for a doctor to report every miscarriage to the police. The police interview the mother, review the file. Take a blood test to rule out drugs.

That’s reality. That is the reality that would occur with the death of a born child, and if the rights are truly the same - and there is no question that rights kick in right after fertilization - then we are compelled as society to make sure that child’s death was not he result of something that could have been prevented.

Now, all this is to say, for me, I have no idea where the line should be drawn. I am not certain where life begins. So I don’t go into such an exercise with an absolute position that has to dictate other choices. What I do know is that the unborn deserve protection, and without any real confidence that a line can be drawn because of the incredibly unique circumstances, I think the only solution we have to is err on one side or another, and in this case, we err on the side extending protection to the unborn but stopping short of investigating miscarriages. I say this because not only are the facts murky, but so is the determination as to when the protection kicks in.

That’s the difference, in my view.

115

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Oh brother. Well, if you want to delve into the minutia of this strawman go ahead. By in-large, miscarriages are not intentional abortions. If said miscarriage was intentionally terminiated, it’s an abortion, not a miscarriage. The word miscarriage presupposes an unintentional loss of child. I am not concerned with unintentional acts, I am concerned about the deliberate,willful causes of death and the fact that it’s legal and to some degree acceptable to do, despite the reality of what it is.

116

[quote]orion wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Austria had troops too in most of those wars, bonehead.

So let’s see, because war happens and people get killed in war, therefore, abortion is not killing a person.
Sorry, I am not following.

117

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Again, a willful act to kill the fetus is an abortion, not a miscarriage. I come from the age when most pregnant woman still smoked and drank while pregnant. You cannot characterize misbehavior as tantamount to a willful abortion. That dog don’t hunt.
I would say deliberately engaging in risky behaviour while pregnent in hopes it will terminate the pregnancy is a poor way to go about an abortion.

118

[quote]pat wrote:

Oh brother. Well, if you want to delve into the minutia of this strawman go ahead. By in-large, miscarriages are not intentional abortions. If said miscarriage was intentionally terminiated, it’s an abortion, not a miscarriage. The word miscarriage presupposes an unintentional loss of child. I am not concerned with unintentional acts, I am concerned about the deliberate,willful causes of death and the fact that it’s legal and to some degree acceptable to do, despite the reality of what it is. [/quote]

It’s not a strawman. It doesn’t matter if you are concerned with “unintentional” acts or not - a person can unintentionally cause the death of another person and a crime has been committed. See “negligent homicide”. If the same rights apply - from fertilization - we have an interest in seeing if the unintentioal death could have been prevented.

119

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am not certain where life begins.
[/quote]

Ahhh. Well, it begins with the zygote. I’ve said it repeatedly, the zygote/embryo on up, is already an individual organism traversing it’s life cycle. Being a human embryo/fetus, it’s a human life. Now that you know, what do you propose to protect that human life?

120

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Oh brother. Well, if you want to delve into the minutia of this strawman go ahead. By in-large, miscarriages are not intentional abortions. If said miscarriage was intentionally terminiated, it’s an abortion, not a miscarriage. The word miscarriage presupposes an unintentional loss of child. I am not concerned with unintentional acts, I am concerned about the deliberate,willful causes of death and the fact that it’s legal and to some degree acceptable to do, despite the reality of what it is. [/quote]

It’s not a strawman. It doesn’t matter if you are concerned with “unintentional” acts or not - a person can unintentionally cause the death of another person and a crime has been committed. See “negligent homicide”. If the same rights apply - from fertilization - we have an interest in seeing if the unintentioal death could have been prevented.[/quote]

It is a strawman simply because what ever the case is for miscarriage, it’s not an abortion, nor does it speak to the rightness and wrongness of abortion or the reality of what it is.