Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

Frankly, it is not the fault of the conceived child, but it is also not the fault of the mother. Assuming it is alive, why should she have to bear said burden to keep the child alive?

Then why is negligent infanticide illegal, if the parent has no burden to keep the child alive?

In a word, ignorance. Also selective enforcement.

There's a fine line between a miscarriage and a that. Miscarriages happen fairly often and far more often than most people think. I know several women who have had them, repeatedly. Good luck really telling the difference. Good luck losing a "negligent infanticide case." I'm going to put a crying mother up on the stand saying how much she loved her child and how she and her husband are trying to have another but that it will never replace the one they lost. It's an incredibly personal thing.

Simple fact is we're living in a world where many of our politicians say you can get a pap smear at Walgreens. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-04-12/entertainment/30052162_1_pap-smears-breast-exams-care-clinic

The people who make the laws are stupid. They are basically prosecuting for miscarriages.

[MadocComadrin]

The people who make the laws are stupid.

And I think that's one of the issues here.

[G-Flex]

And, I have to ask here: Are you going to insist it can only be potential? I mean. At that point the "potential" as you call is greatly increased. If nothing happens, it's a human.

"If you don't act, a human will come into being" does not mean the same thing as "it's human". These are not morally equivalent things. It doesn't matter how great the "potential" is; a potential thing is still not an existent thing.

In a word, ignorance. Also selective enforcement.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that negligent infanticide is only illegal because of ignorance, and that it shouldn't be criminal? I like to think that isn't what you're saying, so I'd appreciate clarification.

There's a fine line between a miscarriage and a that. Miscarriages happen fairly often and far more often than most people think. I know several women who have had them, repeatedly. Good luck really telling the difference.

Er... I'm not sure what you mean here. Miscarriages (generally) aren't the result of negligence and mostly only happen very early in pregnancy, where the personhood of the embryo is very much in question. When you say "telling the difference", you mean telling the difference between what and what, exactly?

[Criptfeind]

"If you don't act, a human will come into being" does not mean the same thing as "it's human". These are not morally equivalent things. It doesn't matter how great the "potential" is; a potential thing is still not an existent thing.

Your idea of what human is is not the only one. The idea is that it is not a "potential" human. It is a human. I did not say a human would come into being, but rather a human is already being. That's the whole point behind "life begins at conception" slogan as far as I am aware.

[GlyphGryph]

Well, I mean, yeah, a Blastocyst is human, but I think we'd be hard pressed to call it "a human" - I don't see how killing sperms, independent creatures with their own chemical desires, who contain nothing but human genetics, is okay, but dumping a blastocyst is not.

Both are human. Both have the potential to become a full blown human being. And both are regularly destroyed by the body itself as a normal part of biology or if it things something might have gone wrong.

By what definition is a zygote any more human and then a sperm, and its potential any more valuable? Specifically, valuable enough that we can sentence a woman to 9 months of letting it leech off her?

Your idea of what human is is not the only one. The idea is that it is not a "potential" human. It is a human. I did not say a human would come into being, but rather a human is already being. That's the whole point behind "life begins at conception" slogan as far as I am aware.

Yes, but some sort of justification is always nice, and there isn't one here. Why is a Blastocyst a human and not an egg or a sperm? What is so fundamentally different that one is human in its own right, while the other is not?

[Criptfeind]

And both are regularly destroyed by the body itself as a normal part of biology or if it things something might have gone wrong.

I was not aware of this. I had no idea that Blastocyst were naturally absorbed back in even when things are going swimmingly.

[GlyphGryph]

Well, sometimes it doesn't implant, sometimes even when it implants the body dumps it anyways, and sometimes it just completely reabsorbs it.

[Lysabild]

Pro-Life = Anti-Woman

[MadocComadrin]

By what definition is a zygote any more human and then a sperm, and its potential any more valuable? Specifically, valuable enough that we can sentence a woman to 9 months of letting it leech off her?

It's 2n (the same as a normal human, non-sex cell), of a genetic composition different from both the father and the mother (hopefully), it follows the 7 characteristics of life, and it is not part of any one system of the mother or the father--it is its own unique organism (cloning, natural or otherwise excluded), which will develop systems of its own.

A sperm or egg, on the other hand, is 1n, is part of a reproductive system, and is not a unique organism.

Pro-Life = Anti-Woman

As funny as GC is, that's a false dichotomy.

[G-Flex]

"If you don't act, a human will come into being" does not mean the same thing as "it's human". These are not morally equivalent things. It doesn't matter how great the "potential" is; a potential thing is still not an existent thing.

Your idea of what human is is not the only one. The idea is that it is not a "potential" human. It is a human. I did not say a human would come into being, but rather a human is already being. That's the whole point behind "life begins at conception" slogan as far as I am aware.

You were talking about "potential" being "increased", not about it already being an actual human. If you want to talk about what is or isn't an actual human, that's another matter entirely.

It's 2n (the same as a normal human, non-sex cell), of a genetic composition different from both the father and the mother (hopefully), it follows the 7 characteristics of life, and it is not part of any one system of the mother or the father--it is its own unique organism (cloning, natural or otherwise excluded), which will develop systems of its own.

It doesn't "follow the 7 characteristics of life" any more than any other tissue in the body.

A zygote is hardly an autonomous living being; it doesn't respond to its environment, reproduce, or have any other characteristics of an organism that any other cell in your body doesn't.

[GlyphGryph]

And since it still runs on the mothers organ system once it implants, I'm not really sure you can call it independent.

[Criptfeind]

You were talking about "potential" being "increased"

Yes? From basically nothing to a whole lot. Like, the potential to be a human goes from <1% to 100%.

And since it still runs on the mothers organ system once it implants, I'm not really sure you can call it independent.

He called it unique.

[Truean]

And, I have to ask here: Are you going to insist it can only be potential? I mean. At that point the "potential" as you call is greatly increased. If nothing happens, it's a human.

"If you don't act, a human will come into being" does not mean the same thing as "it's human". These are not morally equivalent things. It doesn't matter how great the "potential" is; a potential thing is still not an existent thing.

In a word, ignorance. Also selective enforcement.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that negligent infanticide is only illegal because of ignorance, and that it shouldn't be criminal? I like to think that isn't what you're saying, so I'd appreciate clarification.

There's a fine line between a miscarriage and a that. Miscarriages happen fairly often and far more often than most people think. I know several women who have had them, repeatedly. Good luck really telling the difference.

Er... I'm not sure what you mean here. Miscarriages (generally) aren't the result of negligence and mostly only happen very early in pregnancy, where the personhood of the embryo is very much in question. When you say "telling the difference", you mean telling the difference between what and what, exactly?

First, no. Miscarriages happen all the time, at various stages of the pregnancy. Fact of the matter is, both mother and child can very easily die at any time of pregnancy. Historically, it wasn't uncommon for women to die in childbirth. Same thing for the baby. No, people do not understand miscarriages.... Trust me, I am the gay friend whose damp shoulder has been cried upon many a times for this. People just don't talk about it.

Second, "Telling the difference:" Between a miscarriage and a negligent infanticide. It is hard. Don't say "one is negligent and the other isn't." That's just restating the matter. What constitutes negligence and how do you prove it concerning pregnancy? Where do you draw the line on specific facts? Think about what you're actually saying. For all you know the mother fell or tripped, it happens, especially on ice or snow and especially as pregnant women continue being in the workplace during pregnancy. This shit happens.

Moreover, you're dealing with prosecutorial discretion when you really can't tell if it was a miscarriage or an act of negligence. So you have completely selective enforcement when who knows.... You rarely see negligent infanticide cases prenatally for exactly this reason. Now, that's completely different from say an illegally performed abortion or a homicide after birth (a la shaken baby syndrome).

Frankly, I am saying negligent (prenatal) infanticide is illegal due to ignorance on women's health issues, the mistaken belief that she is usually responsible for the death of the unborn child, and the practicality or specifically the lack thereof, of prosecuting the "crime." The "negligence" is often just a miscarriage. Now again, if you've got intent to perform an illegal abortion, which is fine to prosecute, or a shaken baby case, also fine to prosecute. However, most of the negligent (prenatal) infanticides I've seen are just blaming mom for a miscarriage.

We want to think we are in control of things. We aren't. We want to blame someone for everything.

[GlyphGryph]

It's 2n (the same as a normal human, non-sex cell), of a genetic composition different from both the father and the mother (hopefully), it follows the 7 characteristics of life, and it is not part of any one system of the mother or the father--it is its own unique organism (cloning, natural or otherwise excluded), which will develop systems of its own.

Isn't all of this true of cancer as well? (minus there BEING a father to be different from, of course)

Not sure what you mean by "not part of any one system" though. It seems very clearly to be part of the mothers reproductive system.

[G-Flex]

You were talking about "potential" being "increased"

Yes? From basically nothing to a whole lot. Like, the potential to be a human goes from <1% to 100%.

I'm... not even sure what you mean now. Increased potential is not the same as actually being something. Please stop pretending these are the same concepts.

Miscarriages happen all the time, at various stages of the pregnancy. Fact of the matter is, both mother and child can very easily die at any time of pregnancy. Historically, it wasn't uncommon for women to die in childbirth. Same thing for the baby. No, people do not understand miscarriages.... Trust me, I am the gay friend whose damp shoulder has been cried upon many a times for this. People just don't talk about it.

I'm aware that miscarriages can happen at any time, and no, I'm not going to "trust you" based on any anecdotal evidence. I don't care whose gay friend (whatever that's supposed to imply) you are. If you want to talk about miscarriage statistics, then give me miscarriage statistics.

Second, "Telling the difference:" Between a miscarriage and a negligent infanticide.

When I said "negligent infanticide" I was talking about actual born children; most of your post here is acting otherwise, so I apologize for being unclear. I am definitely not suggesting anything regarding the prosecution of fetal "infanticide", which I agree is a pretty sticky issue especially when considering culpability.

I was making the point that if a human life being dependent upon the parent does not cause the parent to be obligated to make sure it doesn't die, why is killing a born child through negligence illegal? I just don't buy the idea that (risk to the mother aside, as that's another important consideration) even if a fetus is considered legally a human child, that the mother has no obligation to take care of it, because we very clearly expect parents to take care of their born children. This isn't to say that I agree that a fetus is a human child; that's another argument entirely.