5 ms·

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 d

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?
        f154hfds 4y ago
        When I refer to abortion I'm talking about a mother consciously choosing (or being coerced) to kill the baby in utero. Miscarriage is unavoidable and tragic, it has nothing to do with a mother's conscious decision. This is like saying a baby dying after birth from a severe birth defect is somehow the mother's fault. Naturally in cases where you can only save one life but not both it makes no sense to let mother and baby die, this is logical and provides a terrible ethical dilemma for doctors to figure out where the borderline is - at what point is the risk to the mother so great that it warrants an abortion? These types of dilemmas are common as far as I understand in medical ethics. I believe an unborn baby is a _person_ with the same intrinsic human rights as you and I, so I see no logical difference except in degree of uncertainty between the baby in the car and an abortifacient killing an unimplanted zygote. Of course the degree of uncertainty is very important legally. If I through an unforeseeable action end up being responsible for the death of an employee of mine, it matters how certain the outcome was based on my negligence. Maybe no one will ever know that I was in some way responsible but it will live on my conscience nonetheless.

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?
      - f154hfds 4y ago
        When I refer to abortion I'm talking about a mother consciously choosing (or being coerced) to kill the baby in utero. Miscarriage is unavoidable and tragic, it has nothing to do with a mother's conscious decision. This is like saying a baby dying after birth from a severe birth defect is somehow the mother's fault. Naturally in cases where you can only save one life but not both it makes no sense to let mother and baby die, this is logical and provides a terrible ethical dilemma for doctors to figure out where the borderline is - at what point is the risk to the mother so great that it warrants an abortion? These types of dilemmas are common as far as I understand in medical ethics. I believe an unborn baby is a _person_ with the same intrinsic human rights as you and I, so I see no logical difference except in degree of uncertainty between the baby in the car and an abortifacient killing an unimplanted zygote. Of course the degree of uncertainty is very important legally. If I through an unforeseeable action end up being responsible for the death of an employee of mine, it matters how certain the outcome was based on my negligence. Maybe no one will ever know that I was in some way responsible but it will live on my conscience nonetheless.