5 ms·

> If the state stops someone from killing me, do they take responsibility for my life from then on too? Do you really believe this is equivalent? You can't see

by csours 4y ago

> If the state stops someone from killing me, do they take responsibility for my life from then on too? Do you really believe this is equivalent? You can't see any distinction here? > Once conception (i.e., fertizilation) has occurred. Do you know the percentage of fertilized eggs that make it to the uterine wall? That make it through the first week of pregnancy? That make it through the first trimester? Should couples register their fertilized eggs with the government so they can be tracked?

josephcsible 4y ago
> Do you really believe this is equivalent? You can't see any distinction here? I assume the distinction that you want me to draw is that I'm an independent adult, and the baby isn't. Consider instead, then, if the government saved a toddler's life. Unless the parents died, or were themselves trying to commit the murder and so are now in jail, responsibility for the child in the future will remain with them and not with the government. > Do you know the percentage of fertilized eggs that make it to the uterine wall? That make it through the first week of pregnancy? That make it through the first trimester? I know it's low. But the fact that natural deaths are common in a certain situation doesn't automatically make intentional killings in that situation okay. For example, even though the survival rate of Zaire ebolavirus is only 10-17%, it's still murder if you kill someone who has Ebola. > Should couples register their fertilized eggs with the government so they can be tracked? No, we don't need more government tracking, and the right to life shouldn't be conditional on being tracked by the government.
- csours 4y ago
  > I know it's low. Which brings me back to my original question: When should a miscarriage be investigated by the government. Not "when does life start". Not "is abortion morally wrong". Not "is abortion murder". When should the government get involved? If 50% of fertilized eggs are naturally lost in the first week, how do you decide which should be investigated by the government? Should the government be examining women for IUDs? > Unless the parents died, or were themselves trying to commit the murder and so are now in jail, responsibility for the child in the future will remain with them and not with the government. So the mother carries the baby to term. Can she simply leave the hospital without paying after giving birth? Does she have to take the baby home? Does she have to love the baby? Does the government get to enforce that too?
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > When should the government get involved? When there's some reason to believe that it might have been intentional. > If 50% of fertilized eggs are naturally lost in the first week, how do you decide which should be investigated by the government? Should the government be examining women for IUDs? Couldn't very early abortions like that be effectively stopped just by banning the pills that are meant to cause them, without having to investigate early miscarriages at all? And no, the government generally shouldn't be examining women for IUDs, since that would constitute an unreasonable search without probable cause. > Can she simply leave the hospital without paying after giving birth? I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. How would this be any different than leaving the hospital after getting a cast put on a broken bone without paying, or leaving a restaurant after eating without paying? > Does she have to take the baby home? Does she have to love the baby? No, she can give the baby up for adoption instead.
    - csours 4y ago
      > When there's some reason to believe that it might have been intentional. > Couldn't very early abortions like that be effectively stopped just by banning the pills that are meant to cause them, without having to investigate early miscarriages at all? It feels very good to be on the righteous side of an argument. Righteousness is a very powerful emotion. It feels good to defend life. It is easy to imagine the future baby. It feels like preventing a needless death. But most fertilized eggs probably don't make it to live birth. That's a stark fact that does not feel good. > I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. How would this be any different than leaving the hospital after getting a cast put on a broken bone without paying, or leaving a restaurant after eating without paying? Because she did not choose to be there. She did not want to go down this path. If a bully breaks your kid's arm, should their family pay the doctor bills? If your date takes you to a restaurant you don't want to go to, should you have to pay the bill? > No, she can give the baby up for adoption instead. And if the baby is not adopted?
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        > Because she did not choose to be there. Isn't that true of most other reasons that people go to hospitals too? Why should this one in particular be free? > If a bully breaks your kid's arm, should their family pay the doctor bills? Isn't the way this works that you'd have to pay the bill initially, and then later be able to go after them for compensation? > If your date takes you to a restaurant you don't want to go to, should you have to pay the bill? Can't you just decline to go to that particular restaurant? > And if the baby is not adopted? Then the baby would end up in the foster care system. Not a good outcome, but a way less bad one than being killed.

by csours 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago

> Do you really believe this is equivalent? You can't see any distinction here? I assume the distinction that you want me to draw is that I'm an independent adult, and the baby isn't. Consider instead, then, if the government saved a toddler's life. Unless the parents died, or were themselves trying to commit the murder and so are now in jail, responsibility for the child in the future will remain with them and not with the government. > Do you know the percentage of fertilized eggs that make it to the uterine wall? That make it through the first week of pregnancy? That make it through the first trimester? I know it's low. But the fact that natural deaths are common in a certain situation doesn't automatically make intentional killings in that situation okay. For example, even though the survival rate of Zaire ebolavirus is only 10-17%, it's still murder if you kill someone who has Ebola. > Should couples register their fertilized eggs with the government so they can be tracked? No, we don't need more government tracking, and the right to life shouldn't be conditional on being tracked by the government.

csours 4y ago
> I know it's low. Which brings me back to my original question: When should a miscarriage be investigated by the government. Not "when does life start". Not "is abortion morally wrong". Not "is abortion murder". When should the government get involved? If 50% of fertilized eggs are naturally lost in the first week, how do you decide which should be investigated by the government? Should the government be examining women for IUDs? > Unless the parents died, or were themselves trying to commit the murder and so are now in jail, responsibility for the child in the future will remain with them and not with the government. So the mother carries the baby to term. Can she simply leave the hospital without paying after giving birth? Does she have to take the baby home? Does she have to love the baby? Does the government get to enforce that too?
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > When should the government get involved? When there's some reason to believe that it might have been intentional. > If 50% of fertilized eggs are naturally lost in the first week, how do you decide which should be investigated by the government? Should the government be examining women for IUDs? Couldn't very early abortions like that be effectively stopped just by banning the pills that are meant to cause them, without having to investigate early miscarriages at all? And no, the government generally shouldn't be examining women for IUDs, since that would constitute an unreasonable search without probable cause. > Can she simply leave the hospital without paying after giving birth? I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. How would this be any different than leaving the hospital after getting a cast put on a broken bone without paying, or leaving a restaurant after eating without paying? > Does she have to take the baby home? Does she have to love the baby? No, she can give the baby up for adoption instead.
  - csours 4y ago
    > When there's some reason to believe that it might have been intentional. > Couldn't very early abortions like that be effectively stopped just by banning the pills that are meant to cause them, without having to investigate early miscarriages at all? It feels very good to be on the righteous side of an argument. Righteousness is a very powerful emotion. It feels good to defend life. It is easy to imagine the future baby. It feels like preventing a needless death. But most fertilized eggs probably don't make it to live birth. That's a stark fact that does not feel good. > I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. How would this be any different than leaving the hospital after getting a cast put on a broken bone without paying, or leaving a restaurant after eating without paying? Because she did not choose to be there. She did not want to go down this path. If a bully breaks your kid's arm, should their family pay the doctor bills? If your date takes you to a restaurant you don't want to go to, should you have to pay the bill? > No, she can give the baby up for adoption instead. And if the baby is not adopted?
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > Because she did not choose to be there. Isn't that true of most other reasons that people go to hospitals too? Why should this one in particular be free? > If a bully breaks your kid's arm, should their family pay the doctor bills? Isn't the way this works that you'd have to pay the bill initially, and then later be able to go after them for compensation? > If your date takes you to a restaurant you don't want to go to, should you have to pay the bill? Can't you just decline to go to that particular restaurant? > And if the baby is not adopted? Then the baby would end up in the foster care system. Not a good outcome, but a way less bad one than being killed.