Women's Lives Before Politics

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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. [/quote]

Wait, why aren’t we investigating miscarriages, if we’re erring on the side of extending any protection at all because life ‘might’ be present? Why not err on the side of both, if life might be present? Because doing both confounds the will to accomplish anything at all, in the pursuit of erring on the side of life? A practical reason? That’s been my argument. Except I don’t hedge over recognizing that human life IS present–and it is, indisputably–while still being able to recognize we’re limited in being able to make judgments about, per your example, ‘working too hard.’ And, that ‘shooting ourselves in the foot’ through an impractical application of law (in the case of miscarriage) would sour public will, leading to hostile politicians, leading to hostile judges, leading to overturned protections we could have enforced practically had we not tried for the impossible. Counter-productive. Not getting ANYTHING accomplished.

The human embryo being a human life is simply a fact. You may or may not recognize in law, but it remains a fact regardless. Honest consideration of this issue must start from honest premises.

To reiterate, the embryo is a living individual organism. This organism is the same individual that will be the same individual organism as an adult. A life cycle, from zygote to adult, refers to stages in the LIFE of the same individual organism. The human embryo is an individual human life. Let’s have this discussion with that biological reality owned up to.

122

[quote]pat wrote:

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.
[/quote]

No, it ain’t a strawman - I am not attacking a false position. I am not exclusively interested in “abortion” - I am interested in “homicide”, that is, the death of a person, whether intentional or not. That captures “abortion”, and it captures all sorts of other conduct that may entail criminal culpability.

We’ve already determined that “abortion” is wrong under my scenario and under your rights framework, because it fits fairly easily into premeditated murder. We’re done with that. Enough. That is not the issue that is being discussed. What is being discussed is all the other crimes related to the death of a person.

123

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Wait, why aren’t we investigating miscarriages, if we’re erring on the side of extending any protection at all because life ‘might’ be present? Why not err on the side of both, if life might be present? Because doing both confounds the will to accomplish anything at all, in the pursuit of erring on the side of life? A practical reason? That’s been my argument.[/quote]

Er, that is what I am asking you - why not investigate miscarriages?

You still haven’t provided an answer to my question. Why can’t we have a blood test and an witness interview under oath after every miscarriage to ensure the mother isn’t criminally culpable for the miscarriage?

You’d do this if a born child died and the mother was a person of interest. So, why not for a miscarriage?

124

[quote]Sloth wrote:

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?[/quote]

Nope. I don’t and never have subscribe(d) to the idea that science alone determines that question in a vacuum, and I suspect you don’t either.

125

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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.
[/quote]

No, it ain’t a strawman - I am not attacking a false position. I am not exclusively interested in “abortion” - I am interested in “homicide”, that is, the death of a person, whether intentional or not. That captures “abortion”, and it captures all sorts of other conduct that may entail criminal culpability.

We’ve already determined that “abortion” is wrong under my scenario and under your rights framework, because it fits fairly easily into premeditated murder. We’re done with that. Enough. That is not the issue that is being discussed. What is being discussed is all the other crimes related to the death of a person.[/quote]

Well, as a pro-LIFER, how do you intend to protect ANYTHING, if you refuse to recognize that a human life is present? If you do recognize that a human life is present how do YOU acknowledge it, as your justification for outlawing abortion, without launching into a homicide investigation with every miscarriage? To say one is pro-life implies that one is not simply offended by the more bloody, barbaric, procedures used in abortion. Some would find themselves repulsed in the back of a butcher’s chop. Pro-life implies protecting a human life. The human life question is answered, and now one seeks to protect it.

126

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Wait, why aren’t we investigating miscarriages, if we’re erring on the side of extending any protection at all because life ‘might’ be present? Why not err on the side of both, if life might be present? Because doing both confounds the will to accomplish anything at all, in the pursuit of erring on the side of life? A practical reason? That’s been my argument.[/quote]

Er, that is what I am asking you - why not investigate miscarriages?

You still haven’t provided an answer to my question. Why can’t we have a blood test and an witness interview under oath after every miscarriage to ensure the mother isn’t criminally culpable for the miscarriage?

You’d do this if a born child died and the mother was a person of interest. So, why not for a miscarriage?[/quote]

I’ve answered your question. I’m actually interested in getting anti-abortion laws passed. If you want a homicide investigation, you can lobby for it.

127

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

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?[/quote]

Nope. I don’t and never have subscribe(d) to the idea that science alone determines that question in a vacuum, and I suspect you don’t either.[/quote]

I’m not sure why you’d suspect that.

128

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’ve answered your question. [/quote]

No offense, but I don’t think you have.

Fair enough. Look, we’re not on opposite teams on this issue. I just can’t grasp the inconsistencies of the people who are “certain” about issues re: abortion. Rest assured, I am even more troubled by the inconsistencies of the pro-choice “certaintists”.

129

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I’ve answered your question. [/quote]

No offense, but I don’t think you have.

Fair enough. Look, we’re not on opposite teams on this issue. I just can’t grasp the inconsistencies of the people who are “certain” about issues re: abortion. Rest assured, I am even more troubled by the inconsistencies of the pro-choice “certaintists”.[/quote]

No, I don’t think we’re on opposite sides at all. Trust me, when I say that I can chew bubble-gum and walk at the same time, I’m not just being glib. While I flat out state that a human life is present, and that is endowed with unalienable rights, a practical bill to end abortion as a practice, would probably look very similar to the language you would use in crafting it.

Santorum, (full disclosure, I’m a supporter) was actually asked how he could support the partial birth ban since it didn’t actually outlaw abortion. In other words, they were asking him how he could support a bill that would still recognize a ‘right’ to an abortion, outside of that procedure. Obviously, he voted for it to take what he could get. A step in the right direction. Would he vote for a bill that maintain legal abortions in cases of rape and incest, but illegal otherwise? You bet! I believe there are many more steps that we can take, until we have the will to ban the practice of abortion. And I think we are moving towards that from what I’ve seen of polls.

But eventually, we will hit a wall in the attempt to protect the life of the unborn. In the case of treating miscarriages as a full blown homicide investigation, that would be insurmountable. I don’t doubt that all. Cases of incest and rape could very well be insurmountable, as far as public will goes. We’re going to move the ball forward, take what we get when it comes, but realize there may very well be limitations that we’ll never get past, or that are simply impractical to get past. And still maintain that a human life IS present in the womb.

130

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

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.
[/quote]

No, it ain’t a strawman - I am not attacking a false position. I am not exclusively interested in “abortion” - I am interested in “homicide”, that is, the death of a person, whether intentional or not. That captures “abortion”, and it captures all sorts of other conduct that may entail criminal culpability.

We’ve already determined that “abortion” is wrong under my scenario and under your rights framework, because it fits fairly easily into premeditated murder. We’re done with that. Enough. That is not the issue that is being discussed. What is being discussed is all the other crimes related to the death of a person.[/quote]

I thought we already covered that. If the actions are directed as terminating a pregnancy that it is an abortion not a miscarriage. The point is the end abortion, not necessarily investigate every event as a matter of crime and punishment. I am not as interested in punishing anybody as I am in making known the practice for what it is and putting it to and end en masse.

In a purely hypothetical sense, you are right that risky behavior can lead to a miscarriage and that mother is technically responsible. It’s not practical to put to investigation every miscarriage unless you can bring forth evidence that large scale evidence that people are typically criminally culpable for a miscarriage.
The problem from the legal aspect is time, effort, and all kinds of constitutional issues. We cannot control how people behave on a day to day basis. Forcing behavior control is something we cannot do.
I don’t think pregnant women doing dumb things is criminal.
I am not seeking to punish all wrong doers. I just want to stop abortions…

131

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
One of the main arguments for/against abortion is when is a human life started?[/quote]

We already know this…

How in the world do people take a pro-choice position without having cracked open a bio/A&P textbook. With such an end result, how does someone not even bother doing a smidgen of bio 101 research. A human embryo is an individual human organism already traversing it’s individual life cycle. Embryo=individual organism. The term embryo merely refers to one stage of an already existing individual organism’s life cycle. Period. Organism= an individual life. Human Embryo=an individual human life. Again, how does anyone possibly take a pro-choice position without having looked this stuff up?!

[/quote]

OMG…Can’t you read? I said THERE IS STILL A DEBATE!!! Obviously people don’t care about Biology 101 if THERE IS STILL A DEBATE!!! I never said I didn’t know when human life started, I SAID THERE WAS STILL A DEBATE!!!

132

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s regrettable that Women’s Health will always be intertwined with the very divisive issue of abortion…

Mufasa[/quote]

It’s been purposely framed that way so that anyone who opposes abortion is automatically wrong because then they oppose “Women’s Health”, don’t care about women, etc.

The REAL crux of the issue is when is a fetus a person. All the other arguments are irrelevant. From my perspective, I like to look at the consequences if each side is wrong. If the pro-life crowd is wrong and fetuses are just a blob of cells, then some unwanted babies are born. If the pro-choice crowd is wrong and fetuses are a human being, then you are sanctioning the murder of innocent babies. Since I’m not God, and I don’t know the answer for sure, I’d rather err on the side of caution. Show me a pro-choice activist who can tell you with exact certainty when a fetus becomes a person and I’ll show you a liar.[/quote]

Show me ANYONE who says with exact certainty when a fetus becomes a person and I’ll show you a liar. The truth is, no one can say when. Pro-lifers have their “truth”, pro-choicers have their “truth” and pro-abortionists have their “truth” and NEVER will the three ever agree. It’s medical science vs. religious views and NEVER will those two ever agree either.
[/quote]

Medical sciece favors the view that the fetus is human through out gestation. It’s a living human organism, I challenge you to find a single shred of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Your viewpoint is odd in your claim that you don’t know when human life begins. Wouldn’t that be handy information to know before you decide to kill said human organism?
I mean, in your view, it’s a craps shoot. So you have a 50/ 50 shot that you are committing murder with an abortion, but that’s a chance your willing to take? [/quote]

I have never, and will never consider abortion murder. I am pro-choice, with the caveat that I would not have an abortion or condone an abortion except under extreme conditions. I don’t believe in them being used as birth control, as I had a friend in high school who DID use them as birth control (she was a very good negative role model on why NOT to have sex).

One of the main arguments for/against abortion is when is a human life started? At conception? When it’s still a mass of cells and doesn’t resemble a human at all? Or when the brain is formed? When the heartbeat can be first heard? Is it still murder if there’s no resemblance of human life? Is it still murder if it’s discovered the baby won’t survive pregnancy? Or life after birth? Or are you just preventing needless suffering of the baby and parents? Are you being merciful in stopping something that can’t possibly survive?
[/quote]

Whoa, why the caveat? If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why would you not have one? If there is nothing wrong with it, than you should be having as many as you like with out issue. So if there is nothing wrong with abortion, why wouldn’t you just have them when ever?

I hate this cop-out…“I am pro-choice, but I wouldn’t have an abortion.” Bullshit. You won’t have an abortion because you know it’s wrong even if you are unable to articulate why.

The only argument surrounding abortion is human life. The rest are red herrings and strawmen…The whole, “You’re against women!” bullshit is just a pathetic lacquer used to try and hide the sheer of a morally repugnant act.

There is no discernible break in the human life cycle between conception and death. Nothing make it suddenly human, it is what it is. It’s a living human organism just like you and me, it just has fewer cells. Looks don’t make something what it is, you and I are a clump of cells, just a bigger clump.

See to say that the fetus isn’t a human life is to say that even if your mother had aborted you, you still would have a chance to exist, because what makes you, you, comes in sometimes later. Well, that’s bullshit. If your mother had an abortion, you wouldn’t be and you never would be again. [/quote]

Gee, maybe I have the caveat because I don’t think it’s right to force a woman to have a baby that is the product of a rape? Or force a teenage girl to have a baby that is a product of incest? Or a baby that won’t survive due to a serious congenital birth defect?

133

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s regrettable that Women’s Health will always be intertwined with the very divisive issue of abortion…

Mufasa[/quote]

It’s been purposely framed that way so that anyone who opposes abortion is automatically wrong because then they oppose “Women’s Health”, don’t care about women, etc.

The REAL crux of the issue is when is a fetus a person. All the other arguments are irrelevant. From my perspective, I like to look at the consequences if each side is wrong. If the pro-life crowd is wrong and fetuses are just a blob of cells, then some unwanted babies are born. If the pro-choice crowd is wrong and fetuses are a human being, then you are sanctioning the murder of innocent babies. Since I’m not God, and I don’t know the answer for sure, I’d rather err on the side of caution. Show me a pro-choice activist who can tell you with exact certainty when a fetus becomes a person and I’ll show you a liar.[/quote]

Show me ANYONE who says with exact certainty when a fetus becomes a person and I’ll show you a liar. The truth is, no one can say when. Pro-lifers have their “truth”, pro-choicers have their “truth” and pro-abortionists have their “truth” and NEVER will the three ever agree. It’s medical science vs. religious views and NEVER will those two ever agree either.
[/quote]

Medical sciece favors the view that the fetus is human through out gestation. It’s a living human organism, I challenge you to find a single shred of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Your viewpoint is odd in your claim that you don’t know when human life begins. Wouldn’t that be handy information to know before you decide to kill said human organism?
I mean, in your view, it’s a craps shoot. So you have a 50/ 50 shot that you are committing murder with an abortion, but that’s a chance your willing to take? [/quote]

I have never, and will never consider abortion murder. I am pro-choice, with the caveat that I would not have an abortion or condone an abortion except under extreme conditions. I don’t believe in them being used as birth control, as I had a friend in high school who DID use them as birth control (she was a very good negative role model on why NOT to have sex).

One of the main arguments for/against abortion is when is a human life started? At conception? When it’s still a mass of cells and doesn’t resemble a human at all? Or when the brain is formed? When the heartbeat can be first heard? Is it still murder if there’s no resemblance of human life? Is it still murder if it’s discovered the baby won’t survive pregnancy? Or life after birth? Or are you just preventing needless suffering of the baby and parents? Are you being merciful in stopping something that can’t possibly survive?
[/quote]

Whoa, why the caveat? If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why would you not have one? If there is nothing wrong with it, than you should be having as many as you like with out issue. So if there is nothing wrong with abortion, why wouldn’t you just have them when ever?

I hate this cop-out…“I am pro-choice, but I wouldn’t have an abortion.” Bullshit. You won’t have an abortion because you know it’s wrong even if you are unable to articulate why.

The only argument surrounding abortion is human life. The rest are red herrings and strawmen…The whole, “You’re against women!” bullshit is just a pathetic lacquer used to try and hide the sheer of a morally repugnant act.

There is no discernible break in the human life cycle between conception and death. Nothing make it suddenly human, it is what it is. It’s a living human organism just like you and me, it just has fewer cells. Looks don’t make something what it is, you and I are a clump of cells, just a bigger clump.

See to say that the fetus isn’t a human life is to say that even if your mother had aborted you, you still would have a chance to exist, because what makes you, you, comes in sometimes later. Well, that’s bullshit. If your mother had an abortion, you wouldn’t be and you never would be again. [/quote]

Gee, maybe I have the caveat because I don’t think it’s right to force a woman to have a baby that is the product of a rape? Or force a teenage girl to have a baby that is a product of incest? Or a baby that won’t survive due to a serious congenital birth defect?[/quote]

If I could get rid of all abortions save for the whole rape and incest thing I would take the deal. Considering the fact that that makes up way less than 1% of all abortions, I’ll take the deal.
However, it still is a human being, and why should the kid be killed because of how it was conceived?
The usually a child with a severe defect will miscarry, I ain’t even worried about that.

The caveat is still curious because you are protecting the 99.999% of abortions done as a method of birth control to protect a tiny minority. Most abortions are a matter of convenience not to protect the woman’s life, or in cases of rape or incest. So if you’ll concede the 99% I’ll concede the 1%. That’s fair, isn’t it?

134

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
One of the main arguments for/against abortion is when is a human life started?[/quote]

We already know this…

How in the world do people take a pro-choice position without having cracked open a bio/A&P textbook. With such an end result, how does someone not even bother doing a smidgen of bio 101 research. A human embryo is an individual human organism already traversing it’s individual life cycle. Embryo=individual organism. The term embryo merely refers to one stage of an already existing individual organism’s life cycle. Period. Organism= an individual life. Human Embryo=an individual human life. Again, how does anyone possibly take a pro-choice position without having looked this stuff up?!

[/quote]

OMG…Can’t you read? I said THERE IS STILL A DEBATE!!! Obviously people don’t care about Biology 101 if THERE IS STILL A DEBATE!!! I never said I didn’t know when human life started, I SAID THERE WAS STILL A DEBATE!!![/quote]

At what point of gestation would you concede the life is a human life?

137

[quote]pat wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Accidental death usually warrants an investigation.

Just saying.

138

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Wait, why aren’t we investigating miscarriages, if we’re erring on the side of extending any protection at all because life ‘might’ be present? Why not err on the side of both, if life might be present? Because doing both confounds the will to accomplish anything at all, in the pursuit of erring on the side of life? A practical reason? That’s been my argument.[/quote]

Er, that is what I am asking you - why not investigate miscarriages?

You still haven’t provided an answer to my question. Why can’t we have a blood test and an witness interview under oath after every miscarriage to ensure the mother isn’t criminally culpable for the miscarriage?

You’d do this if a born child died and the mother was a person of interest. So, why not for a miscarriage?[/quote]

How about this for an answer - precedent?

Long before Roe v Wade was the twinkle in the eye of a legislating from the bench USSC judge…back when abortions were illegal…back when the value of unborn life was rarely questioned as a “parasite” in a woman’s body…back when it was pretty much universally recognized that a child in the womb could not/should not be intentionally pickled and sucked out of the womb and bagged up and delivered to the hospital incinerator…miscarriages were never investigated as a crime.[/quote]

If we want to talk about precedent and the good ol’ days might as well make abortion legal for every 2 of 5 cases for black people.

139

You can hate our dogma all day long, wish we’d do as you pleas, etc. The reality is that we won’t. Period. It’s not going to happen. So, start preparing for the potential consequences

"…In a variety of international settings, I have seen religious groups, with support from the U.S. government, engaged in AIDS treatment, fistula repair, malaria control, and the promotion of child and maternal health. Ram Cnaan of the University of Pennsylvania has documented the domestic role of ?sacred places that serve civic purposes? ? homeless shelters, food banks, health care, welfare-to-work, prisoner re-entry programs. Cnaan estimates the ?replacement value? ? the cost to government agencies of assuming these roles ? to be about $140,000 each year for the typical community-serving religious institution.

Take the case of one city: Philadelphia. There are about 2,000 such faith-based institutions, many of them Catholic. Replacing them would require about a quarter of a billion dollars every year. Catholic Social Services helps more than 250,000 people a year in soup kitchens, shelters and centers for the disabled. Its Community-Based Services division runs adoption and foster-care programs, staffs senior community centers and supports immigration services. The Catholic Nutritional Development Services, working in partnership with public agencies, delivers nearly 10 million meals a year ? accounting for about half of all meals delivered to poor children in Philadelphia in the summer months when school is out.

Much of this good work ? and similar work across the country ? is now threatened. If federal policies make it impossible for religious nonprofits and hospitals to work in conjunction with federal, state and local agencies in providing social services, millions of poor and vulnerable Americans ? Catholic and non-Catholic, religious and nonreligious ? would suffer. The task of building alternatives would cost hundreds of billions of dollars ? and then lack the distinctive human touch provided by religious groups…"

Get ready to roll your sleeves up folks. Grab your checkbooks and wallets. Clear you schedules.

140

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Accidental death usually warrants an investigation.

Just saying.[/quote]

The problem with a miscarriage is that there is no evidence. I doubt you could medically prove what lead to the death even given all possible information.