4 ms·

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

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
        >When I refer to abortion I'm talking about a mother consciously choosing (or being coerced) to kill the baby in utero. Involuntary manslaughter does not require conscious choice to kill, premeditate conscious choice is murder, you brought manslaughter into the argument. Just as someone drinking and driving does not intend to kill someone they can still be found guilty. A woman older than 35 having unprotected sex which could lead to geriatric pregnancy could be considered to putting an unborn person at risk due to much increased chance of spontaneous abortion. >These types of dilemmas are common as far as I understand in medical ethics. These choices will be easy in states that outlaw abortion with no exceptions because there will be no choice. >I believe an unborn baby is a _person_ with the same intrinsic human rights as you and I If zygote is a person does that mean freezing embryos that may never be used is homicide? Is embryo selection in IVF also homicide when only picking some of the embryos?
        f154hfds 4y ago

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
      >When I refer to abortion I'm talking about a mother consciously choosing (or being coerced) to kill the baby in utero. Involuntary manslaughter does not require conscious choice to kill, premeditate conscious choice is murder, you brought manslaughter into the argument. Just as someone drinking and driving does not intend to kill someone they can still be found guilty. A woman older than 35 having unprotected sex which could lead to geriatric pregnancy could be considered to putting an unborn person at risk due to much increased chance of spontaneous abortion. >These types of dilemmas are common as far as I understand in medical ethics. These choices will be easy in states that outlaw abortion with no exceptions because there will be no choice. >I believe an unborn baby is a _person_ with the same intrinsic human rights as you and I If zygote is a person does that mean freezing embryos that may never be used is homicide? Is embryo selection in IVF also homicide when only picking some of the embryos?
      - f154hfds 4y ago