Life begins at conception...

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I maintain that there are planned killings of unborn children (aka abortion)
That there are unplanned killings of unborn children (aka miscarriages)
That there are negligences in caring for unborn children

So I think that these unborn children need a voice and that all crimes against them should be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law (and if no current law covers these things then we should make laws our laws for the unborn with just as strict of penalties that we have in dealing with the born.) and I can declare all this because I believe life begins at conception!

So who is with me in giving those women that don't plan to kill their unborn children but do anyways (aka miscarry) 10-25 years in prison?

I hope you like my satire

I don't really follow your satire here, frogger. The two "events" that you introduce to us are not both "killings."

When my grandmother died of kidney failure many years ago no one could be said to have "killed" her. Nor did anyone kill my grandfather when he died of complications from a lung infection in his eighties. They simply died due to natural causes.

Succumbing to disease and advanced age is not the same as "Being Killed" - no matter what 'motivation' or "planning" we might hypothetically want to apply after the fact.

The same with a miscarriage. Often the exact causes of a miscarriage are never fully understood. But we can understand that the unfortunate mother-to-be who has suffered a miscarriage did not in any fashion "kill" the unborn child.

An abortion on the other hand is different. Here there is a deliberate decision and decisive and fatal action is taken. What we are left to question is the motivation behind these actions. Was it done to save the life of the mother that she might bear another child (as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy)? Or, was it done for some frivolous reason?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I don't really follow your satire here, frogger. The two "events" that you introduce to us are not both "killings."

When my grandmother died of kidney failure many years ago no one could be said to have "killed" her. Nor did anyone kill my grandfather when he died of complications from a lung infection in his eighties. They simply died due to natural causes.

Succumbing to disease and advanced age is not the same as "Being Killed" - no matter what 'motivation' or "planning" we might hypothetically want to apply after the fact.

The same with a miscarriage. Often the exact causes of a miscarriage are never fully understood. But we can understand that the unfortunate mother-to-be who has suffered a miscarriage did not in any fashion "kill" the unborn child.

An abortion on the other hand is different. Here there is a deliberate decision and decisive and fatal action is taken. What we are left to question is the motivation behind these actions. Was it done to save the life of the mother that she might bear another child (as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy)? Or, was it done for some frivolous reason?

You bring out a good point pel. Not all women that miscarry do things that cause them to miscarry. I agree with that. However, sometimes women aren't aware they are pregnant and may do some things that do increase their chances of miscarrying. Now, some might argue that showing an increase in chance doesn't prove that whatever the woman did caused her to miscarry. I agree it doesn't. However, take the example of tobacco companies whose products only offer an increased chance for lung cancer (albeit a very large increased chance). They are liable even though it cannot be proven that their product actually caused lung cancer in any specific case (maybe the person was just one of the 1% that gets lung cancer without ever smoking). Therefore, I think it's easy to see how a woman can be liable even if it can only be proven that her actions increased the chances of a miscarriage.

So the last question that needs answered is whether a reasonable woman would have had the foresight to know her actions could harm an unborn child. Well, in the best case the woman would have used contraception. However, Contraception does have a failure rate. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that a woman who "does it" with contraception knows she still has a chance of being pregnant and because of this the death of the unborn human due to any actions that increase the chances of miscarriage should have been forseeable.

I think I've offered enough evidence to continue with my call for the prosecution of any such negligent women whose actions increase the chance of miscarriage and then result in the death of an unborn human...