If Life begins at conception

[dwilhelmi]

In answer to the original post:
Involuntary Manslaughter is defined by state, so it is tough to nail down a general description. However, one thing that seems to be common is that it takes rather extreme forms of negligence. Some of the wording I saw used included:

• criminal, gross, or culpable negligence
• they require more than the ordinary negligence standard in a civil case
• "reckless" or "wanton"
• high degree of negligence or recklessness

(source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... nslaughter)

Going by these definitions, getting a charge of involuntary manslaughter would require far more than standard, day to day activities of a pregnant woman. So unless said pregnant woman was doing something very extreme to bring about the miscarriage, then no, they should not be charged with Involuntary Manslaughter.

Beyond this initial point, I would like to add some additional thoughts that surfaced as I was reading this thread.

The points raised claiming that the abortion rate "might actually increase" when you make abortion illegal, I call utter BS on. In order for this to be true, you would have to have a statistically significant number of women who only got an abortion because it was illegal. I find it very hard to believe that you have very many women thinking to themselves "Well, I wasn't going to get an abortion, but heck, since it's illegal, why not?".

In general, I find it very hard to believe that abortion rates would not decrease if we were to make abortion illegal. I am sure that there is a significant portion of women getting abortions today that are close enough to the border on the decision as to be swayed by the enormous risk of getting an abortion in a society where they are illegal. I'm not going to say it's impossible, but I find it very improbable.

Even if it were true, however, would not mean that abortion shouldn't be illegal. If abortion numbers didn't change by outlawing abortion, that would not be a problem with the law, but rather a problem with the enforcement of the law.

As to my personal opinions about the legality of abortion (in case you couldn't guess from my post thus far): I absolutely think that abortion should be illegal, and punishable as murder, in all cases except for physical health of the mother. It is amazing to me how people's opinion on this matter change as soon as they can see the baby. If a woman took her week old baby to a person with the intent of that person killing the baby, and was caught, then nobody would disagree with sending both the mother and the person doing the killing to jail. Inside the body or out, that thing is human, and should be protected as such.

As far as I'm aware there are two common reasons to claim abortion is murder. (if someone has another reason please share)
1. You are convinced that what makes a clump of matter a person is a divinely granted soul. You are also convinced that god gives people this soul at conception. Ok, cool, but accept that a lot of other people don't have those religious convictions and address the matter of practicality, should abortion really be legally equivalent to murder?

2. You think potential to become human is the same as being human. I.E. just because if "left undisturbed" a cell might turn into a human, it already has the right to life that we grant humans. This isn't actually consistent, because it ignores the probabilities. Potential to become human isn't binary. What about pulling out? is that depriving a potential human from being born? What about a device that if left undisturbed will impregnate a cell, does stopping that device make me a murderer?

3. You think that being human means that you have a unique combination of human dna, which you have as soon as fertilization occurs. When that initial fertilization occurs, there is a being inside of the mother which has it's very own, distinct, human dna. That is the only static, secular definition of human that I can think of. External viability is far too dynamic to be used as a reliable determination of being human. And if something is human, regardless of where that human currently is in their developmental lifecycle, it should be protected from someone else killing it.

[natty dread]

The points raised claiming that the abortion rate "might actually increase" when you make abortion illegal, I call utter BS on. In order for this to be true, you would have to have a statistically significant number of women who only got an abortion because it was illegal. I find it very hard to believe that you have very many women thinking to themselves "Well, I wasn't going to get an abortion, but heck, since it's illegal, why not?".

You may find it "hard to believe" but that doesn't make it false.

Fact is that countries where abortions are illegal have more abortions than countries where it's legal.

As to my personal opinions about the legality of abortion (in case you couldn't guess from my post thus far): I absolutely think that abortion should be illegal, and punishable as murder, in all cases except for physical health of the mother. It is amazing to me how people's opinion on this matter change as soon as they can see the baby. If a woman took her week old baby to a person with the intent of that person killing the baby, and was caught, then nobody would disagree with sending both the mother and the person doing the killing to jail. Inside the body or out, that thing is human, and should be protected as such.

So, you're comfortable telling other people what they should do with their bodies?

You think that being human means that you have a unique combination of human dna, which you have as soon as fertilization occurs.

Why does "having unique DNA" make you "human"? That's just as arbitrary a definition as any other.

[kentington]

So, you're comfortable telling other people what they should do with their bodies?

+5

We shouldn't tell people what to do with their bodies. Which is why we shouldn't end lives. It isn't the mother's body, it's the little one's.

[Haggis_McMutton]

So, you're comfortable telling other people what they should do with their bodies?

+5

We shouldn't tell people what to do with their bodies. Which is why we shouldn't end lives. It isn't the mother's body, it's the little one's.

So then the mother, say, taking up kickboxing lessons is cool right?

After all she's only taking hits to her stomach and she can do what she wants with her body.

3. You think that being human means that you have a unique combination of human dna, which you have as soon as fertilization occurs. When that initial fertilization occurs, there is a being inside of the mother which has it's very own, distinct, human dna. That is the only static, secular definition of human that I can think of. External viability is far too dynamic to be used as a reliable determination of being human. And if something is human, regardless of where that human currently is in their developmental lifecycle, it should be protected from someone else killing it.

So if I splice human dna by your definition I am creating new humans in my test tube, correct?

[natty dread]

So, you're comfortable telling other people what they should do with their bodies?

+5

We shouldn't tell people what to do with their bodies. Which is why we shouldn't end lives. It isn't the mother's body, it's the little one's.

Wow, you sure showed me. I hadn't thought about it that way. Now that you called that clump of cells a "little one" I'm suddenly convinced it has rights that trumps the rights of an actual human being!

[kentington]

So, you're comfortable telling other people what they should do with their bodies?

+5

We shouldn't tell people what to do with their bodies. Which is why we shouldn't end lives. It isn't the mother's body, it's the little one's.

Wow, you sure showed me. I hadn't thought about it that way. Now that you called that clump of cells a "little one" I'm suddenly convinced it has rights that trumps the rights of an actual human being!

Sure take kick boxing if it makes you feel good. Get punched and kicked in the stomach all you want. Seriously? You can take kick boxing without actually sparring. Plus then are you trying to get the person you are sparring with charged with murder?
If you can call it a clump of cells I can call it a little one.
It always boils down to - if you don't want to be pregnant don't get pregnant.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Sure take kick boxing if it makes you feel good. Get punched and kicked in the stomach all you want. Seriously? You can take kick boxing without actually sparring. Plus then are you trying to get the person you are sparring with charged with murder?
If you can call it a clump of cells I can call it a little one.
It always boils down to - if you don't want to be pregnant don't get pregnant.

It all boils down to: You are not god, you don't get to decide what other people can and cannot do based on your irrational beliefs and emotions.

Btw:
Picture of barely created "little one"


The little guy has grown up so much in this one:

[natty dread]

It always boils down to - if you don't want to be pregnant don't get pregnant.

Ok, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you had invented a 100% reliable contraception method.

[rdsrds2120]

It always boils down to - if you don't want to be pregnant don't get pregnant.

Ok, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you had invented a 100% reliable contraception method.

No -- the solution is clear -- you should only have sex if you're willing and open to a pregnancy.

Work your way outta' this one, natty!

[daddy1gringo]

It always boils down to - if you don't want to be pregnant don't get pregnant.

Ok, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you had invented a 100% reliable contraception method.

No -- the solution is clear -- you should only have sex if you're willing and open to a pregnancy.

Work your way outta' this one, natty!

If you don't believe God was responsible, then, yes, you have to say 100%

[natty dread]

People who get accidentally pregnant need to be punished for being dirty sex-having sluts!

[daddy1gringo]

People who get accidentally pregnant need to be punished for being dirty sex-having sluts!

Will you grow up please? Ascribing contemptible attitudes to those who disagree with you by pretending to speak for them is not part of a responsible debate.
That said, a baby is not a punishment. A baby can be, however, the natural consequence of choices one makes.

Misleading slogan: "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?" Answer: You have already been entrusted with both a choice and a child.

[kentington]

People who get accidentally pregnant need to be punished for being dirty sex-having sluts!

If it's considered punishment, then get surgically neutered. Like Gringo said Punishment does not equal Consequence. No one said sluts or that sex was dirty. I don't have a problem with sex, but I also know the consequences of sex. I think the consequences are pretty common knowledge.

[dwilhelmi]

The points raised claiming that the abortion rate "might actually increase" when you make abortion illegal, I call utter BS on. In order for this to be true, you would have to have a statistically significant number of women who only got an abortion because it was illegal. I find it very hard to believe that you have very many women thinking to themselves "Well, I wasn't going to get an abortion, but heck, since it's illegal, why not?".

You may find it "hard to believe" but that doesn't make it false.

Fact is that countries where abortions are illegal have more abortions than countries where it's legal.

1. Prove this with more than words please.
2. Prove that the increased abortion rates are due to it being illegal, and no other factor.

There are too many other possible factors to use that as a predictor on what would happen to abortion rates in a country if it changes from legal to illegal.

As to my personal opinions about the legality of abortion (in case you couldn't guess from my post thus far): I absolutely think that abortion should be illegal, and punishable as murder, in all cases except for physical health of the mother. It is amazing to me how people's opinion on this matter change as soon as they can see the baby. If a woman took her week old baby to a person with the intent of that person killing the baby, and was caught, then nobody would disagree with sending both the mother and the person doing the killing to jail. Inside the body or out, that thing is human, and should be protected as such.

So, you're comfortable telling other people what they should do with their bodies?

When what you are doing with your body threatens the life of another human being, yes.

You think that being human means that you have a unique combination of human dna, which you have as soon as fertilization occurs.

Why does "having unique DNA" make you "human"? That's just as arbitrary a definition as any other.

Sure, it's arbitrary, in the same way that any definition of any word is arbitrary. It is, however, a consistent, static, easily definable definition. Human DNA == Human. Chimp DNA == Chimp. Nice and simple.

So if I splice human dna by your definition I am creating new humans in my test tube, correct?

Yes. By that secular definition of human, that new creation would in fact be human.

As to your pictures of your barely created "little one" that you posted, how does what a human look like change whether they are human? Those pictures aren't what you think of when you think human, so that makes them not human?

[kentington]

Sure take kick boxing if it makes you feel good. Get punched and kicked in the stomach all you want. Seriously? You can take kick boxing without actually sparring. Plus then are you trying to get the person you are sparring with charged with murder?
If you can call it a clump of cells I can call it a little one.
It always boils down to - if you don't want to be pregnant don't get pregnant.

It all boils down to: You are not god, you don't get to decide what other people can and cannot do based on your irrational beliefs and emotions.

Btw:
Picture of barely created "little one"


The little guy has grown up so much in this one:

Correct I am not God. These aren't irrational beliefs and emotions. You claim that me wanting abortion made illegal is equivalent to playing God. Yet you don't see how killing a living being is not?
Great pictures btw. What is the purpose of them? To show me they don't look like a baby? If you want to judge a human by looks, limbs and what not, then you are on a slippery slope there.

[Neoteny]

Sure, it's arbitrary, in the same way that any definition of any word is arbitrary. It is, however, a consistent, static, easily definable definition. Human DNA == Human. Chimp DNA == Chimp. Nice and simple.

Speaking of slippery slopes...

[kentington]

Sure, it's arbitrary, in the same way that any definition of any word is arbitrary. It is, however, a consistent, static, easily definable definition. Human DNA == Human. Chimp DNA == Chimp. Nice and simple.

Speaking of slippery slopes...

Can you elaborate? Not being sarcastic, I would like to know what you mean by this.

[natty dread]

The points raised claiming that the abortion rate "might actually increase" when you make abortion illegal, I call utter BS on. In order for this to be true, you would have to have a statistically significant number of women who only got an abortion because it was illegal. I find it very hard to believe that you have very many women thinking to themselves "Well, I wasn't going to get an abortion, but heck, since it's illegal, why not?".

You may find it "hard to believe" but that doesn't make it false.

Fact is that countries where abortions are illegal have more abortions than countries where it's legal.

1. Prove this with more than words please.
2. Prove that the increased abortion rates are due to it being illegal, and no other factor.

sigh... I've posted it before on this very forum, so if you're interested use the search function.

There are too many other possible factors to use that as a predictor on what would happen to abortion rates in a country if it changes from legal to illegal.

As to my personal opinions about the legality of abortion (in case you couldn't guess from my post thus far): I absolutely think that abortion should be illegal, and punishable as murder, in all cases except for physical health of the mother. It is amazing to me how people's opinion on this matter change as soon as they can see the baby. If a woman took her week old baby to a person with the intent of that person killing the baby, and was caught, then nobody would disagree with sending both the mother and the person doing the killing to jail. Inside the body or out, that thing is human, and should be protected as such.

So, you're comfortable telling other people what they should do with their bodies?

When what you are doing with your body threatens the life of another human being, yes.

You think that being human means that you have a unique combination of human dna, which you have as soon as fertilization occurs.

Why does "having unique DNA" make you "human"? That's just as arbitrary a definition as any other.

Sure, it's arbitrary, in the same way that any definition of any word is arbitrary. It is, however, a consistent, static, easily definable definition. Human DNA == Human. Chimp DNA == Chimp. Nice and simple.

So if I splice human dna by your definition I am creating new humans in my test tube, correct?

Yes. By that secular definition of human, that new creation would in fact be human.

As to your pictures of your barely created "little one" that you posted, how does what a human look like change whether they are human? Those pictures aren't what you think of when you think human, so that makes them not human?

Ok well, here's another nice, consistent, static, easily definable definition: black people == slaves. It's an arbitrary definition, there's no evidence to back it up, but since we apparently can just decide things because they're "nice and simple" and they sound good in our minds, well what the hey hey.

Hmm... can we make more of these? Children == free labor. Women == inferior to men. Gays == criminals. Wheeee, this is so much FUN!!!

Everything is so simple! We can just decide things arbitrarily, as long as the definitions are "nice and simple" - no matter how little sense they make or how many people those definitions oppress! No need to debate about moral issues any more - everything just got easy! Who cares if people get hurt, those people are not me! WHEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

[dwilhelmi]

The points raised claiming that the abortion rate "might actually increase" when you make abortion illegal, I call utter BS on. In order for this to be true, you would have to have a statistically significant number of women who only got an abortion because it was illegal. I find it very hard to believe that you have very many women thinking to themselves "Well, I wasn't going to get an abortion, but heck, since it's illegal, why not?".

You may find it "hard to believe" but that doesn't make it false.

Fact is that countries where abortions are illegal have more abortions than countries where it's legal.

1. Prove this with more than words please.
2. Prove that the increased abortion rates are due to it being illegal, and no other factor.

sigh... I've posted it before on this very forum, so if you're interested use the search function.

You have not posted it in this thread, and I don't care to go digging through the entire forum. Your making the point, you provide the proof. You also neglected to address my second point - it isn't enough to say that there are more abortions in a country where it is illegal than in a country where it isn't. In order for that to be a valid point, you must be able to prove that the higher rates are due to the fact that it is illegal. If you compare a country of 1000 people where abortion is legal to a country of 1000000 people where abortion is illegal, then yeah, the abortion is illegal country is going to have more abortions - doesn't mean that making abortion illegal has no impact on abortion rates.

Ok well, here's another nice, consistent, static, easily definable definition: black people == slaves. It's an arbitrary definition, there's no evidence to back it up, but since we apparently can just decide things because they're "nice and simple" and they sound good in our minds, well what the hey hey.

Hmm... can we make more of these? Children == free labor. Women == inferior to men. Gays == criminals. Wheeee, this is so much FUN!!!

Everything is so simple! We can just decide things arbitrarily, as long as the definitions are "nice and simple" - no matter how little sense they make or how many people those definitions oppress! No need to debate about moral issues any more - everything just got easy! Who cares if people get hurt, those people are not me! WHEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

Well, in my case, it makes sense to define human in terms of DNA. Whereas your examples make no sense. There needs to be some way to define human - what is your alternative? External viability? What if a baby is never externally viable, and miscarries on delivery? Was that not a human child, because they couldn't survive outside the mother's body? Do you have some other definition of human? DNA is the only definition I have ever heard of that makes logical sense (all humans have human DNA, therefore human DNA makes one human).

[Neoteny]

Sure, it's arbitrary, in the same way that any definition of any word is arbitrary. It is, however, a consistent, static, easily definable definition. Human DNA == Human. Chimp DNA == Chimp. Nice and simple.

Speaking of slippery slopes...

Can you elaborate? Not being sarcastic, I would like to know what you mean by this.

Well, Mr. Nate took it down one slope. Another direction would be the eugenics route, where we have to define what the hell "Human DNA" actually entails.

Tbh, I was probably mostly just irked that someone would say anything related to genetics is "simple" and lashed out with a one liner. In all likelihood, the individual that put the phrase forward doesn't actually know the differences between a chimp and a human, nor does he or she probably even care, about the implications of that statement or what it might actually mean.

[kentington]

Sure, it's arbitrary, in the same way that any definition of any word is arbitrary. It is, however, a consistent, static, easily definable definition. Human DNA == Human. Chimp DNA == Chimp. Nice and simple.

Speaking of slippery slopes...

Can you elaborate? Not being sarcastic, I would like to know what you mean by this.

Well, Mr. Nate took it down one slope. Another direction would be the eugenics route, where we have to define what the hell "Human DNA" actually entails.

Tbh, I was probably mostly just irked that someone would say anything related to genetics is "simple" and lashed out with a one liner. In all likelihood, the individual that put the phrase forward doesn't actually know the differences between a chimp and a human, nor does he or she probably even care, about the implications of that statement or what it might actually mean.

Got it.
I understand the one liner response too. It happens. Usually people understand what you mean with one liners so you don't have to explain, but I can be dense sometimes.

On that note though, I am sure we could define humans through DNA. Not that it would be easy but it could be done if there was an interest. I think I get what you mean though. What if there is a mutation in the DNA, is it still human? To what degree? Where is the cut off?

The only thing is, that can be as much an excuse to let this go on as it is a reason. I mean most certainly anything created from human sperm and human egg in a womb should be considered human, regardless of a mutation after that point. That is how it would work with other animals.

@Natty : You mentioned that in countries where abortion is illegal they have a higher rate of abortion. Are these 3rd world countries? Developed countries? Have they ever had it legalized?
The risk of an abortion having complications without a doctor is high. This would deter some, the fact that it would be illegal would deter others.

[john9blue]

it's obvious to me that natty favors abortion for reasons of personal convenience.

[BigBallinStalin]

It always boils down to - if you don't want to be pregnant don't get pregnant.

Ok, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you had invented a 100% reliable contraception method.

No -- the solution is clear -- you should only have sex if you're willing and open to a pregnancy.

Work your way outta' this one, natty!

If you don't believe God was responsible, then, yes, you have to say 100%

Ah, the moral crusader rises to the challenge! ON GUARD!

[natty dread]

Ok well, here's another nice, consistent, static, easily definable definition: black people == slaves. It's an arbitrary definition, there's no evidence to back it up, but since we apparently can just decide things because they're "nice and simple" and they sound good in our minds, well what the hey hey.

Hmm... can we make more of these? Children == free labor. Women == inferior to men. Gays == criminals. Wheeee, this is so much FUN!!!

Everything is so simple! We can just decide things arbitrarily, as long as the definitions are "nice and simple" - no matter how little sense they make or how many people those definitions oppress! No need to debate about moral issues any more - everything just got easy! Who cares if people get hurt, those people are not me! WHEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

Well, in my case, it makes sense to define human in terms of DNA. Whereas your examples make no sense. There needs to be some way to define human - what is your alternative? External viability? What if a baby is never externally viable, and miscarries on delivery? Was that not a human child, because they couldn't survive outside the mother's body? Do you have some other definition of human? DNA is the only definition I have ever heard of that makes logical sense (all humans have human DNA, therefore human DNA makes one human).

Oh, it makes "sense". Ok... I'll take your word for it. Hey, I can assert things that make "sense" to me too. To me it makes "sense" that you must spend the rest of your life with a watermelon in your asshole. Sideways. Are you going to do it now? It makes "sense". I promise it does.

show: more serious response

[Symmetry]

The points raised claiming that the abortion rate "might actually increase" when you make abortion illegal, I call utter BS on. In order for this to be true, you would have to have a statistically significant number of women who only got an abortion because it was illegal. I find it very hard to believe that you have very many women thinking to themselves "Well, I wasn't going to get an abortion, but heck, since it's illegal, why not?".

You may find it "hard to believe" but that doesn't make it false.

Fact is that countries where abortions are illegal have more abortions than countries where it's legal.

1. Prove this with more than words please.
2. Prove that the increased abortion rates are due to it being illegal, and no other factor.

sigh... I've posted it before on this very forum, so if you're interested use the search function.

You have not posted it in this thread, and I don't care to go digging through the entire forum. Your making the point, you provide the proof. You also neglected to address my second point - it isn't enough to say that there are more abortions in a country where it is illegal than in a country where it isn't. In order for that to be a valid point, you must be able to prove that the higher rates are due to the fact that it is illegal. If you compare a country of 1000 people where abortion is legal to a country of 1000000 people where abortion is illegal, then yeah, the abortion is illegal country is going to have more abortions - doesn't mean that making abortion illegal has no impact on abortion rates.

Ok well, here's another nice, consistent, static, easily definable definition: black people == slaves. It's an arbitrary definition, there's no evidence to back it up, but since we apparently can just decide things because they're "nice and simple" and they sound good in our minds, well what the hey hey.

Hmm... can we make more of these? Children == free labor. Women == inferior to men. Gays == criminals. Wheeee, this is so much FUN!!!

Everything is so simple! We can just decide things arbitrarily, as long as the definitions are "nice and simple" - no matter how little sense they make or how many people those definitions oppress! No need to debate about moral issues any more - everything just got easy! Who cares if people get hurt, those people are not me! WHEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

Well, in my case, it makes sense to define human in terms of DNA. Whereas your examples make no sense. There needs to be some way to define human - what is your alternative? External viability? What if a baby is never externally viable, and miscarries on delivery? Was that not a human child, because they couldn't survive outside the mother's body? Do you have some other definition of human? DNA is the only definition I have ever heard of that makes logical sense (all humans have human DNA, therefore human DNA makes one human).

So does saliva, but that doesn't make saliva human. Simply possessing human DNA does not, obviously make something human, and for that matter, doesn't even make a human who has DNA a living thing, given that dead folk also have human DNA.

In short, a nonsense argument.

Much like your suggestion that it's up to people who are in favour of the current system where abortions are legal to somehow provide evidence against your fantasy land where abortion rates decrease when made illegal. Surely you wouldn't be so unfair as to deprive us of your careful research backing up your stance?