6 ms·

For the sake of argument, assume that life does begin at conception. However murder is defined as taking the life of a human being. Conception is not a logical

by rswail 4y ago

For the sake of argument, assume that life does begin at conception. However murder is defined as taking the life of a human being. Conception is not a logical place to ascribe the beginning of a human being. As an example, is the loss of a zygote, or a blastocyte, or an ectopic implantation to be considered the death of a human being?

xeromal 4y ago
Probably not. The line is vague, but I'll say there's precedent that a murderer who kills a mom and her unborn child gets charged with two murders. Or in the instance of that mother that was detained by the police roughly and lost her unborn child in the process. In these cases, the women/families want the child so the unborn baby becomes a human for the sake of argument, but I think a lot of people can see that rationale being a bit weird, yeah? A human is a human whether someone wants them to be or not.
f154hfds 4y ago
I might not understand your question. If life begins at conception, then of course a zygote is a human being and that zygote not making it would be a death by definition. Before implantation etc, you might never know that human being existed. So discovering you killed that zygote without knowing it isn't the same as abortion just like accidental manslaughter isn't murder.
- SigmundA 4y ago
  You can go to prison for manslaughter. So should women who's body naturally aborted which happens quite regularly (30-40%) [1] be charged with manslaughter? Birth control actually prevents implantation rather than conception every once in a while [2], would taking birth control be considered manslaughter if proven it prevented implantation rather than conception? This is actually what many are worried about now that Roe v Wade is down, Griswald vs Connecticut could be up next. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage [2] https://www.guttmacher.org/antiabortion-activists-their-own-words-contraception-abortion https://www.guttmacher.org/antiabortion-activists-their-own-...
  - f154hfds 4y ago
    I do believe there's a case to be made that 'abortifacient' birth control should be regulated more carefully, and used for the protection of the mother instead of as a general-use contraceptive. Though this kind of manslaughter can't practically result in prosecution, so at the end of the day the use of abortifacients might have to be on the conscience of the potential mother (and father).
    - SigmundA 4y ago
      So you seem to be saying that anyone taking hormonal birth control could be technically commit a crime (manslaughter) but it's just not feasible to prosecute? What about spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? If the women is found negligent such as taking excessive risks (smoking, drinking, excessive age, some strenuous physical activity) they are also technically committing manslaughter correct? Again regardless of how viable it is to prosecute such a crime, are they committing a crime?
      - f154hfds 4y ago
        It's only a crime if there is a law criminalizing it, and I can see reasons why a just state would not make laws about abortifacients for several reasons not the least of which being it's unreasonable to prosecute such an offense. It is both wrong and a crime to forget your child in a hot car to the point where they die. It isn't murder but it would be on your conscience regardless of whether the state prosecuted you or not. As I believe the unborn have an equal right to life as the born children it makes logical sense to enact laws such that crack use resulting in deformed children is a prosecutorial offense tantamount to neglect of born children. Of course, there is also criminal negligence vs. accidental crimes and all of that still applies. EDIT: miscarriage isn't abortion, I'm not sure about its relevance to the discussion?
        SigmundA 4y ago
        Miscarriage is literally called spontaneous abortion which is why I linked it to be clear. The woman’s body is playing an active role in rejecting the fetus as it deems it non viable, happens very frequently usually due to chromosomal defects. What say you on ectopic pregnancies where it will never be viable and poses a threat to the mother? Of course leaving a baby in a car is potentially manslaughter nobody is arguing that because there is general agreement that child is a person. The question is why you believe a fertilized egg is a person? Why is a separate sperm and egg combination not also considered a person? Why is conception the bright line? Why would you leave something as serious as homicide up to the state to decide?

by rswail 4y ago

xeromal 4y ago

Probably not. The line is vague, but I'll say there's precedent that a murderer who kills a mom and her unborn child gets charged with two murders. Or in the instance of that mother that was detained by the police roughly and lost her unborn child in the process. In these cases, the women/families want the child so the unborn baby becomes a human for the sake of argument, but I think a lot of people can see that rationale being a bit weird, yeah? A human is a human whether someone wants them to be or not.

f154hfds 4y ago

I might not understand your question. If life begins at conception, then of course a zygote is a human being and that zygote not making it would be a death by definition. Before implantation etc, you might never know that human being existed. So discovering you killed that zygote without knowing it isn't the same as abortion just like accidental manslaughter isn't murder.

SigmundA 4y ago
You can go to prison for manslaughter. So should women who's body naturally aborted which happens quite regularly (30-40%) [1] be charged with manslaughter? Birth control actually prevents implantation rather than conception every once in a while [2], would taking birth control be considered manslaughter if proven it prevented implantation rather than conception? This is actually what many are worried about now that Roe v Wade is down, Griswald vs Connecticut could be up next. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage [2] https://www.guttmacher.org/antiabortion-activists-their-own-words-contraception-abortion https://www.guttmacher.org/antiabortion-activists-their-own-...
- f154hfds 4y ago
  I do believe there's a case to be made that 'abortifacient' birth control should be regulated more carefully, and used for the protection of the mother instead of as a general-use contraceptive. Though this kind of manslaughter can't practically result in prosecution, so at the end of the day the use of abortifacients might have to be on the conscience of the potential mother (and father).
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    So you seem to be saying that anyone taking hormonal birth control could be technically commit a crime (manslaughter) but it's just not feasible to prosecute? What about spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? If the women is found negligent such as taking excessive risks (smoking, drinking, excessive age, some strenuous physical activity) they are also technically committing manslaughter correct? Again regardless of how viable it is to prosecute such a crime, are they committing a crime?
    - f154hfds 4y ago
      It's only a crime if there is a law criminalizing it, and I can see reasons why a just state would not make laws about abortifacients for several reasons not the least of which being it's unreasonable to prosecute such an offense. It is both wrong and a crime to forget your child in a hot car to the point where they die. It isn't murder but it would be on your conscience regardless of whether the state prosecuted you or not. As I believe the unborn have an equal right to life as the born children it makes logical sense to enact laws such that crack use resulting in deformed children is a prosecutorial offense tantamount to neglect of born children. Of course, there is also criminal negligence vs. accidental crimes and all of that still applies. EDIT: miscarriage isn't abortion, I'm not sure about its relevance to the discussion?
      - SigmundA 4y ago
        Miscarriage is literally called spontaneous abortion which is why I linked it to be clear. The woman’s body is playing an active role in rejecting the fetus as it deems it non viable, happens very frequently usually due to chromosomal defects. What say you on ectopic pregnancies where it will never be viable and poses a threat to the mother? Of course leaving a baby in a car is potentially manslaughter nobody is arguing that because there is general agreement that child is a person. The question is why you believe a fertilized egg is a person? Why is a separate sperm and egg combination not also considered a person? Why is conception the bright line? Why would you leave something as serious as homicide up to the state to decide?