That’s an interesting, if extremely odd, opinion. You’ve voiced it many times, but have never given any facts to back it up. And given the explicit language in laws like the one in South Dakota (which I cited above) which exempt the woman from any legal action even in the case of a deliberate abortion, I have to conclude that you are, to use a highly technical term, pulling shit out of your ass.
But today we don’t investigate every death.
Why would this be any different?
I’ve already pointed out the example of the “Mexico City Policy”, which killed women; that never stopped the anti-choice people from pushing it. There’s the so-called “partial birth abortion” ban, which has no effect except to force women to use less safe methods - it doesn’t stop a single abortion, it just puts women in greater danger. There’s the fact that the same people who oppose abortion oppose contraception, sex education, and women’s rights in general. There’s their notorious disdain for children after they are born.
And so on; worldwide, these people have been relentlessly anti-woman. They are an anti-woman movement, not an anti-abortion one.
And… how do you reconcile the difference between:
…and…
Seems to me you should have said:
“If abortion is murder, then misscarriage COULD BE invoulantary manslaughter. It’s undeniable IF AN INVESTIGATION PROVES RECKLESSNESS.”
Right?
Oh, please. The US deciding not to fund abortions in Mexico. That’s your evidence?
You mean the bill that passed the Senate with 64 votes? I didn’t know there were that many anti-women people in the Senate.
If that’s a fact, then it should be easy to provide a cite. All pro-life people oppose birth control. Please provide a cite to support that statement.
Pure opinion. That’s not even a provable statement,
Well, then you should be able to provide a cite that, worldwide when abortion is not legal, all miscarriages are required to be investigated. Why don’t you start with Ireland.
Consistency demands that if life begins at conception, define the zygote as a full blown human worthy of protection same as you and me, that we prosecute the ending of that life the same as we would prosecute someone ending an adult’s life. Simple as that. If a woman miscarries why wouldn’t it be investigated as a potential murder or negligent homicide (or whatever particular term you want to apply for murder) same as if her two year old died in her care?
If the pro life side of the equation wants to say we shouldn’t do that, except as a strategic move on a slippery slope to get there, then they have conceded the unborn is lesser to not mandate the same protection any human gets. In that case they are more in line with the pro choice side and not sure what they are even arguing. The mother’s rights prevail because the unborn does not merit the same level of protection as a born human.
Because today we don’t criminally investigate the death of a 90-year-old woman in hospital intensive care, unless there’s some reason to do so.
We don’t even criminally investigate the death of every two year old.
Do you imagine that we do? Why?
And again: something you have never directly answered, so far as I can recall. When abortion was illegal in this country in 1940, miscarriages were not generally investigated. Today, abortion is illegal in Chile. Miscarriages are not the subject of criminal investigation there. Why not?
You would have the reader believe in your unassailable logic: “See? See my reasoning? I tell you, it would just HAVE to be that way!”
But when your logic is placed up against actual historic and current practice fact, you ask us to dismiss the inconvenient fact and believe in the reasoning instead.
Answer the question: if it’s such a logical necessity that miscarriages be investigated as potential homicides, why wasn’t it done when abortion was illegal in this country? Why isn’t it done now where abortion is illegal?
No. The unborn gets the same level of protection.
When a human being dies, you seem to think there’s an automatic criminal investigation. Get over that idea.
Over it? Good.
They have not because the pro life position is so untenable they cannot go there. That they treat the child as something less than a human, even in Ireland, highlights how full of shit they are on that point. Such laws are based in religious belief and nothing concrete. At the end even devout people cannot fully embrace the bullshit and horror that is the pro life position so they waffle on the law. Definitionally the unborn in Ireland is deemed lesser than a born human.
And a 90 year old dying in the hospital is not investigated. A 90 year old dying at home would be…at least in a cursory way. My friend’s mom died at the age of 67 of cancer at home. That it was coming was no surprise (at that point) to anyone. My friend got a call from the police and police were there when she arrived. So yeah, even an unsurprising death can and does attract the attention of the police.
Got that? Good.
Bricker:
If the unborn is human why are they not granted the same protection as you or me?
So, your evidence is an anecdote told to you by “a friend”. We’re supposed to accept that as proof that all deaths are investigated? Amd, are you retreating now to “some deaths” are investigated?
I know all deaths are not investigated. My dad died in a hospital bed and the police did not investigate.
Are you saying the police don’t investigate people dying? Really?
If a child dies at home the police are not going to look into it because…why?
Or they recognize that medical conditions are what they are. That we don’t investigate the death of someone under medical care whose condition is tenuous because there’s no reason to suspect foul play.
It can. It doesn’t have to. Why were the police there?
Better than you do. I have no problem using the same standard we use for born persons: the police investigate if there is any reason to suspect foul play.
You would have the reader believe that storm troopers would pound on the door of every woman who suffers a miscarriage. Or, you say, if they didn’t that proves the position of pro-lifers is inconsistent.
But I’m telling you that the position is perfectly consistent: all deaths, born or unborn, should be investigated when there is reason to suspect foul play. If there is no reason, there is no investigation.
OK. So, why would all miscarriages be investigated?
No. I’m saying that a death does not automatically trigger an investigation. An acquaintance of mine died a few years ago. He was about 40, otherwise healthy and was found dead in a motel room in the same town where he lived with his wife and 2 sons. He had been partying the night before with his buddies. There was a police investigation. Can you see why that would be so?
They may, if there is reason to think foul play was involved. Plus it’s very unusual for children to die in this country. Do you know that about 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriages? It’s not unusual at all.
So how is “foul play” determined?
Someone dies, the state needs to now that and make at least an initial assessment of whether an investigation needs to be done yes? I presume when someone dies in the hospital the hospital files a report and the state is content to accept their word on whether the case needs investigation or was just the natural order of things.
When someone dies at home then what?
For the sake of argument let’s say abortion = murder. Let’s look at two cases:
-
Woman has a 1-month old baby. Neighbors note she no longer has the child. It seems to have disappeared.
-
Woman is 3 months pregnant then it is noted she is no longer pregnant.
I am sure you would agree case #1 would be investigated. Why not case #2 if we grant that abortion is murder, the unborn has the same right to life you, I or that 1-month old in #1 has?
And yes I know that many pregnancies end in miscarriage. So what? If there is a human life involved and murder is a possibility are the police just to shrug it off?
The threshhold question is: “Is there reason to suspect foul play?”
Case 1: Yes. Born persons do not simply disappear. While there may well be some innocent explanation for the child vanishing, the odds are strongly against it. It must be at least investigated.
Case 2: Many pregnancies end in miscarriage. While there may be some foul play involved, the odds are strongly against it. Unless there is additional evidence, it need not be investigated.
And one last time: in Chile, today, abortion is completely illegal. No exception even for the health of the mother.
And yet miscarriages are not investigated by police.
Yours is speculation. That is FACT.
You are aware, I hope, that pre-Roe abortions were often performed by inducing miscarriages by various means (drugs, herbal concoctions, many other means), and that actual abortions were often explained away as having been miscarriages, or simply “female trouble”. That was consistent with a belief that life did not begin until the quickening, so that meanwhile the situation could be considered a “blockage” instead and “treated” medically.
So yes, in a culture where abortions, which you agree are murder (except for sometimes when they aren’t :dubious: ) can virtually always be called miscarriages, wouldn’t it be necessary for those abortions you wish to declare murder to be investigated? How would you know which miscarriages were “genuine” or not without it? Would they fall under the exceptions to the moral code you are declaring?
Where did I disagree with the facts?
I want you to tell me how, if you define the unborn as human with all the rights you or I possess and includes not being killed, you square a world where a terminated pregnancy is not murder and not investigated.
If you think that mothers should not be investigated if they miscarry and/or believe in lesser penalties for a woman who aborts than your garden variety murderer would get then YOU are being inconsistent and must agree that the unborn is “lesser” and not human in the way we are and not deserving of the same protections against being killed.
If the unborn is lesser, not entitled to the protections you and I enjoy, then the case for making a mother bear her rapist’s child falls apart. The mother has rights too and if the unborn can’t be murdered then the mother’s rights prevail.
Asked and answered:
No. Each of those situations is distinguishable, and I have already given the reasoning. Investigation is triggered on suspicion of foul play. That’s true across the board. Please acknowledge that I have said this, and stop claiming that I haven’t answered this question.
And now I’ll try an alternate tack: so what? Let’s pretend you’re right, and the positions are inconsistent. So what? From my point of view, adopting an inconsistent position will still save lives. So I could insist on complete consistency of law or I could accept the inconsistency of lesser or no penalties for women that procure abortions, knowing that the end result has the effect of stopping many abortions. Why must I agree to total consistency? (Please note that this is for the sake of argument only: I do not agree that there is inconsistency in the position. But for the sake of argument: sure, it’s inconsistent. So?)
I’m pro-choice, but I think you’re getting up on having a right being identical to having that right be regarded as equal. I heard an interview once with Bill Buckley. He pointed out that in our society we sometimes have instances of competing rights. You have the right to do X and I have the right to do Y. They are both legal rights, but if they come into conflict, society has to create a hierarchy. Buckley was of the opinion that in the case of abortion, the right of the mother, as a full-flkedged member of society, should be given a higher status then the fetus, who, although alive, a potential, future member of our functioning society. So, the rights of both entities can be acknowledged, with one of them given a higher status when they come into competition. This happens daily in our society, albeit with not so weighty an issue.