Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[BjornP]

You’re proposing that we consider a fetus as a citizen, with all rights implied.

I’m saying that that view is a luxury granted by the latest advances in medicine. There was never a time before that a severely premature baby had even the faintest hope of survival.

I’m also trying to give you the perspective on how incredibly new and unusual that is. And it still isn’t an option in less developed parts of the world.

Not fetuses, definite article, not everyone. Twelve weeks and beyond that. What you do is your business. My country has a law against abortions past twelve weeks, but no law against women who endanger or kill their children in the womb because of irresponsible drinking or drug use.

And yeah, that's why the Jews had no problem with abortion, considering a child only to be alive when it first "draws breath", i.e. exits the womb, umbellical cord cut, and breathes for itself. The only other story mention pre-born children, considers fetuses property and subject to the paying of damages over, not murder.

Even if it's true, why the hell would/should anyone care if it is, or isn't, an option in less developed parts of the world? Explain that part.

Because you can’t determine an absolute moral standard based on the current circumstances. We exist in a thin soap bubble of “civilization”, hanging by a thread over the void. To assume that modern convenience will always exist and improve is folly.

If you want to get closest to an objective morality, you need to consider other possible states of development and civilization - not just 21st century Europe and America.

And again, that matters...how? Who has need of "absolute moral standards" or "objective morality"? I'm not on Team Christianity in case you forgot. Even if one does need those things, I'm still discussing a mom choosing to drink her child to death. If I wanted any "absolute moral standard", it would be one that adresses that and only that... not fucking "miscarriages", because that's irrelevant. A miscarriage ain't a choice. You can't and should not punish circumstance. You can punish a choice.

[Speaker to Animals]

Even there..

GCF is raging against God because God allows evil in the world. He argues that we should be able to kill unborn babies because God allows babies to die in miscarriages.

It's really about God with him. I wonder how blind he is to it?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Should. Could.

Heroin addicts SHOULD stop using heroin. Cops SHOULD pursue the law blindly. Hispanics SHOULD integrate into society.

But we aren’t discussing what “should” be done. We are discussing how you’d like to enforce it.

And if you make intentional miscarriage prosecutable, then all miscarriage is, by necessity, prosecutable.

The only way that this could be enforced would be through constant government monitoring of every pregnancy - the nutrition, care, blood testing, and family environment would be potential evidence in the case, and need to be collected as such.

Not only that, but now the precedent is set for ALL medical information to be monitored, lest another crime be committed.

Follow. Your. Own. Logic.

You and Okee are doing exactly what you bitch about liberals doing on other topics - blindly flailing for the state to stop something that you disagree with, with no thought to what that would actually look like.

I honestly didn’t think I’d even have to explain this point to you.

We are? Oh, you mean you are? Ok, I'll play along.

How the fuck do you arrive at doctors being able to tell if a woman is drink/drugged enough to have caused harm or death to her infant, to government needing to "monitor" ALL medical information? The only thing you'd need, as I already told you, is doctors being able to judge if the miscarriage was caused by a drug/alcohol overdose, then call the cops, end of story. No "monitoring" at all required. It's similar to how anyone ELSE's dead body gets decided to be either a natural or intentional death. That state overreach, too, dumbass? If a doctor upon inspecting a dead woman's headwound comes to the conclusion that she died because someone killed her, is that also setting the precedent for government "monitoring" all medical data?

How long do you think the onus would be on the state to prove intent to miscarry? This would almost immediately end up like the family court system - he-said, she-said, with years of rape cave in the balance.

Teen mother that wants to abort would simply avoid the hospital, so we can’t just let them alone. What if that miscarriage was intentional? Therefore we simply must monitor all aspects of pregnancies, at all times.

She never showed up and there’s no baby? Arrest her!

[SuburbanFarmer]

Even there..

GCF is raging against God because God allows evil in the world. He argues that we should be able to kill unborn babies because God allows babies to die in miscarriages.

It's really about God with him. I wonder how blind he is to it?

And then I’m asked why I’m arguing about God.

:facepalm:

[SuburbanFarmer]

Not fetuses, definite article, not everyone. Twelve weeks and beyond that. What you do is your business. My country has a law against abortions past twelve weeks, but no law against women who endanger or kill their children in the womb because of irresponsible drinking or drug use.

And yeah, that's why the Jews had no problem with abortion, considering a child only to be alive when it first "draws breath", i.e. exits the womb, umbellical cord cut, and breathes for itself. The only other story mention pre-born children, considers fetuses property and subject to the paying of damages over, not murder.

Even if it's true, why the hell would/should anyone care if it is, or isn't, an option in less developed parts of the world? Explain that part.

Because you can’t determine an absolute moral standard based on the current circumstances. We exist in a thin soap bubble of “civilization”, hanging by a thread over the void. To assume that modern convenience will always exist and improve is folly.

If you want to get closest to an objective morality, you need to consider other possible states of development and civilization - not just 21st century Europe and America.

And again, that matters...how? Who has need of "absolute moral standards" or "objective morality"? I'm not on Team Christianity in case you forgot. Even if one does need those things, I'm still discussing a mom choosing to drink her child to death. If I wanted any "absolute moral standard", it would be one that adresses that and only that... not fucking "miscarriages", because that's irrelevant. A miscarriage ain't a choice. You can't and should not punish circumstance. You can punish a choice.

It matters for the same reasons that our Constitution is now neutered. You cannot base law on present circumstance.

The 1st, 2nd, and 4th are all destroyed, because of “present circumstance”. Not because the objective points changed, but because our current crisis du jour is far too important to allow them to stand. The founders simply must have not foreseen 9/11, so we can burn it all, right?

This is the same mentality. We currently have the ability to keep a 13-week fetus alive, therefore issue a social security card and call it murder if we don’t? It wouldn’t even make sense in any other context but our current society.

[BjornP]

How long do you think the onus would be on the state to prove intent to miscarry? This would almost immediately end up like the family court system - he-said, she-said, with years of rape cave in the balance.

Teen mother that wants to abort would simply avoid the hospital, so we can’t just let them alone. What if that miscarriage was intentional? Therefore we simply must monitor all aspects of pregnancies, at all times.

She never showed up and there’s no baby? Arrest her!

Again, not "intent to miscarry", but intent to drink a substance in a quantity which CAUSES the miscarriage. It's like drunk driving. Vehicular manslaughter is still manslaughter, "even if" you're "only" got drunk. How is a medical professional offering her opinion on wether an infant died of natural causes or because of alcohol poisoning or drug overdose? That's "he said/she said" to you?

Oh, but let me play along with your fantasy, here:

"Husband murders wife by multiple stabbings, but we can't know if the wife died of natural causes... it's really just he said/she said. And we can't charge her... after all, WE MUST MONITOR EVERY MARRIED COUPLE'S BEDROOM! It's impossible to craft a legal system that punishes murder because it obviously *cough* mandates that we monitor everyone, everywhere at all time. Therefore, it is now legal to murd.. I mean kill anyone you like."

Right... because all other crimes in US society go to court and only get tried because you all got a secret FBI man looking down on you... right now. That's totally how things work, I'm sure.

[SuburbanFarmer]

How long do you think the onus would be on the state to prove intent to miscarry? This would almost immediately end up like the family court system - he-said, she-said, with years of rape cave in the balance.

Teen mother that wants to abort would simply avoid the hospital, so we can’t just let them alone. What if that miscarriage was intentional? Therefore we simply must monitor all aspects of pregnancies, at all times.

She never showed up and there’s no baby? Arrest her!

Again, not "intent to miscarry", but intent to drink a substance in a quantity which CAUSES the miscarriage. It's like drunk driving. Vehicular manslaughter is still manslaughter, "even if" you're "only" got drunk. How is a medical professional offering her opinion on wether an infant died of natural causes or because of alcohol poisoning or drug overdose? That's "he said/she said" to you?

Oh, but let me play along with your fantasy, here:

"Husband murders wife by multiple stabbings, but we can't know if the wife died of natural causes... it's really just he said/she said. And we can't charge her... after all, WE MUST MONITOR EVERY MARRIED COUPLE'S BEDROOM! It's impossible to craft a legal system that punishes murder because it obviously *cough* mandates that we monitor everyone, everywhere at all time. Therefore, it is now legal to murd.. I mean kill anyone you like."

Right... because all other crimes in US society go to court and only get tried because you all got a secret FBI man looking down on you... right now. That's totally how things work, I'm sure.

Actually, not far from the truth... but we digress.

My point is that miscarriage is still a common thing, and somewhat traumatic for those involved. You cannot expect to drag every instance of it into court.

[BjornP]

You cannot expect to drag every instance of it into court.

I wouldn't and never expressed a sentiment in that regard. I'd only care about the instance that involves drinking or consuming drugs of an amount that kills a child past 12 weeks. If you stretch that to one instance of drinking and one of drug use, you have two instances. Feel free to admit that that's not "every" case now.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You cannot expect to drag every instance of it into court.

I wouldn't and never expressed a sentiment in that regard. I'd only care about the instance that involves drinking or consuming drugs of an amount that kills a child past 12 weeks. If you stretch that to one instance of drinking and one of drug use, you have two instances. Feel free to admit that that's not "every" case now.

And again, how do you propose to enforce this new law?

Are you hoping that the mother simply shows up to be examined, while the evidence is still in her system? She won’t. You’ll find some percentage of them dead, as they avoided care after the miscarriage.

More than that, since any miscarriage is prone to being interpreted as the mothers fault (unless we all suddenly trust beaurocrats), legitimate pregnancies will avoid the system, once stories begin to emerge of inevitable false convictions ripping families apart.

So now you have to monitor all pregnancies with law enforcement, as I mentioned more than once.

You can also expect to enjoy the societal implications of mass numbers of hidden pregnancies and a lack of prenatal care, as people rightfully try to avoid your draconian system.

[BjornP]

So now you have to monitor all pregnancies with law enforcement, as I mentioned more than once.

..and it just keeps getting more and more retarded every time you say it. I'd expect to find it to become less or the same level of retarded, but nope, its retardedness just keeps rising in power, somehow. Goodnight, GCF.