Should trying to conceive a child be made illegal if personhood starts at conception?

[TuxAme]

If one believes that full personhood in conferred at conception miscarriages would be the foremost issue that needs to be addressed. Abortion would not even be a priority as we are dealing with a disorder that kills the majority of people. That this is not even addressed by anti-abortion groups and individuals is one of many reasons that I don't believe that they believe what they claim to.

I see your point. Why should we be concerned with genocide when there's plenty of people dying of natural causes?

 

[ranunculus]

imo, this argument is even more ridiculous.

How so, do you deny that up to half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage?

 

[ranunculus]

The difference is that miscarriages are natural deaths that are occurring on their own. Abortions are not. It's the elective termination of a pregnancy.

How do you tell the difference without an investigation?

 

[MariaJLM]

How do you tell the difference without an investigation?

It's easy to tell since women will go to doctors saying they want an abortion.

 

[Desk trauma]

I see your point. Why should we be concerned with genocide when there's plenty of people dying of natural causes?

If there was a genocide taking place while a plague is killing the majority of children world wide, which should be the priority?

 

[Mary Meg]

And how do you know it was no one's fault without an inquest, an investigation into every failed pregnancy? Are you just going to take their word for it? How do you differentiate between a spontaneous miscarriage and a self induced miscarriage?

In most cases, you give people the benefit of the doubt -- as you in most deaths of adults. If somebody appears to die of natural causes, you presume that's the case unless you have a reason to think otherwise. It's only if the cause of death is obviously murder, of if there are suspicious circumstances, that another person is held as possible culpable.

That can't be helped. But you can stop miscarriages by not getting pregnant.

And this is the point: natural miscarriages can't be helped. But even knowing the risk, people get pregnant anyway, because not getting pregnant also excludes the good outcome of having a healthy child.

I'm just exposing the inconsistencies of the pro life rhetoric. Millions of children die in the womb and no one bats an eye.

And you're being awfully insensitive. Have you never known a couple who, while trying to have a child, suffer repeated miscarriages? And you think "no one bats an eye"? Seriously? I'm sure you can't possibly imagine the pain of miscarriage for grieving parents. You've probably never been to a funeral for a "fetus." For mothers whose health problems pose serious complications for pregnancy, who do suffer repeated miscarriages, then yes, they do have to think seriously about whether it is worth the risk to try again -- not only the risk of death to the child, but the risk of going through that pain again and again.

 

[TuxAme]

How do you tell the difference without an investigation?

You don't have to, and you know this. Miscarriages are natural deaths by definition.

 

[ranunculus]

It's easy to tell since women will go to doctors saying they want an abortion.

Not every woman goes to a doctor. You know there's other methods, right?

 

[TuxAme]

If there was a genocide taking place while a plague is killing the majority of children world wide, which should be the priority?

Do you compare miscarriage to a plague? If so, I have to ask why you believe that while this "plague" (since you seem to refer to it as such) is claiming the lives of the majority of children world wide, we should also be committing a genocide against those children who manage to be spared of this plague?

 

[ranunculus]

In most cases, you give people the benefit of the doubt -- as you in most deaths of adults. If somebody appears to die of natural causes, you presume that's the case unless you have a reason to think otherwise. It's only if the cause of death is obviously murder, of if there are suspicious circumstances, that another person is held as possible culpable.

That to me says that you don't think a fetus has the same rights as born person.

If I were to ran over any person, child or adult, with my car in the mall parking lot, there would be an investigation. I would be tested for alcohol and drugs and if I were found to be at fault I would go to prison, most likely for involuntary manslaughter. (Correct me if I'm wrong about this)
Or consider this news story: Discovery of toddler's body in yard leads to couple's arrest
The fact that a child's body was found on the property was cause to make an arrest.

Now if we afford a fetus the same rights as that person who was run over in the mall parking lot, then every time a woman miscarries there would need to be an investigation into the cause. You can't just throw your hands up and say "well, it was probably an accident." Because that would be conceding that a fetus doesn't have the same rights as a person.
And how do you differentiate between a spontaneous abortion and a self induced abortion? (A self-induced abortion or self-induced miscarriage is an abortion performed by the pregnant woman herself outside the recognized medical system. )
You can't lock up every women who has had a miscarriage. That would leave almost the entire female population in prison and create a dystopian police state.
If you want to be consistent, there needs to be created a system were pregnancies have to be registered, and monitored with mandatory checkups of any blood loss by a doctor,...
But this would be practically impossible. Every pad, tampon would become a crime scene investigation. Most states don't even have enough resources to test rape kits. Thousands get thrown away untested. So how will they test every failed pregnancy?
Imagine a couple trying to conceive, they want to start a family. Statistically they have a high chance of killing a zygote that fails to implant as you can see from the statistics I mentioned. Do you want them to be the subject of a criminal investigation? If the answer is no then a zygote isn't a person.

And this is the point: natural miscarriages can't be helped. But even knowing the risk, people get pregnant anyway, because not getting pregnant also excludes the good outcome of having a healthy child.

And you're being awfully insensitive. Have you never known a couple who, while trying to have a child, suffer repeated miscarriages? And you think "no one bats an eye"? Seriously? I'm sure you can't possibly imagine the pain of miscarriage for grieving parents. You've probably never been to a funeral for a "fetus." For mothers whose health problems pose serious complications for pregnancy, who do suffer repeated miscarriages, then yes, they do have to think seriously about whether it is worth the risk to try again -- not only the risk of death to the child, but the risk of going through that pain again and again.

I'm not talking about individuals.
Are pro life organizations are pumping money into research to stop fertilized eggs from failing to implant?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Depends. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
But why isn't it a numbers game? If a fetus is a person, then miscarriage is the number one health crisis in the world. The average lifespan of humans isn't 80, it's closer to 45 if that's the case. What's been done to stop them?

*edited to ask, 'Is it ethical and moral to allow a person to accidentally end the life of another person 50% of the time, even though that person is still in the womb?'

This is a really weak argument since the conclusion of it is extinction.

I suppose there are logical holes one could punch into the pro-life position. Of course, that isn't likely to achieve very much because anybody who takes a pro-life position often does so on moral grounds. So, with respect to my cohort in the pro-life movement, a logical argument probably won't change their minds since it was never about reason with them; it's about life.

With all due respect to those who hold the pro-abortion view, I sometimes wonder how many anvils have to fall on their heads before they realize that all the rigid logic in the world won't change the pro-life side's collective mind. Because the pro-life movement's opposition to abortion has a very different foundation than the pro-abortion movement's support of abortion.

 

[ranunculus]

You don't have to, and you know this. Miscarriages are natural deaths by definition.

see post #30

 

[Mary Meg]

That to me says that you don't think a fetus has the same rights as born person.

Why in the world would you think that?

 

[Desk trauma]

In most cases, you give people the benefit of the doubt -- as you in most deaths of adults.

Were abortion made illegal and seriously pursued as murder was this would not be something that could be allowed. Surgical abortion would not be the most common type but rather chemically induced ones that would be almost identical to natural miscarriages. There would need to be extensive, intrusive monitoring of women to prevent this.

And this is the point: natural miscarriages can't be helped.

Would you take a similar oh well cant do anything about it attitude towards any other cause of death that was killing the majority of children?

And you're being awfully insensitive. Have you never known a couple who, while trying to have a child, suffer repeated miscarriages? And you think "no one bats an eye"? Seriously? I'm sure you can't possibly imagine the pain of miscarriage for grieving parents.

If they believe that a fetus is ensouled and enters heaven, what exactly is there to mourn? Wouldn't that be something to celebrate?

 

[ranunculus]

This is a really weak argument since the conclusion of it is extinction.

I suppose there are logical holes one could punch into the pro-life position. Of course, that isn't likely to achieve very much because anybody who takes a pro-life position often does so on moral grounds. So, with respect to my cohort in the pro-life movement, a logical argument probably won't change their minds since it was never about reason with them; it's about life.

With all due respect to those who hold the pro-abortion view, I sometimes wonder how many anvils have to fall on their heads before they realize that all the rigid logic in the world won't change the pro-life side's collective mind. Because the pro-life movement's opposition to abortion has a very different foundation than the pro-abortion movement's support of abortion.

Nobody here is pro abortion. That's a smear.
And I think I can make a rational argument for why personhood starting from conception is unreasonable.
Child sacrifice in America dealt with by heaven

Of course if only works if you accept reason...

 

[Desk trauma]

Do you compare miscarriage to a plague?

Yes, that is the comparison I made.

If so, I have to ask why you believe that while this "plague" (since you seem to refer to it as such) is claiming the lives of the majority of children world wide, we should also be committing a genocide against those children who manage to be spared of this plague?

Do you plan to address the question I posed?

 

[ranunculus]

Why in the world would you think that?

You should read the quote I posted after that sentence.
Should trying to conceive a child be made illegal if personhood starts at conception?

 

[Mary Meg]

Would you take a similar oh well cant do anything about it attitude towards any other cause of death that was killing the majority of children

Centuries ago, a really high percentage of children if not a majority died in infancy due to disease. Should somebody have been prosecuted for that? No. Natural causes are natural, even if they are sad and we wish we could prevent them. You can't always hold somebody liable. I definitely think parents should do everything they can to ensure the health of their children, but death happens. To every one of us.

If they believe that a fetus is ensouled and enters heaven, what exactly is there to mourn? Wouldn't that be something to celebrate?

*blinks* *shakes head slowly*

 

[TuxAme]

see post #30

Are you talking about the "failure" of pro-life organizations to invest money in research on how to improve the success rate of implantation? If so, I feel that I shouldn't have to remind you that:

A) You are challenging our motivations, not our arguments themselves, and

B) Many organizations and groups are dedicated to solving one facet of the problem. As a volunteer for a community service organization, I dedicated myself to providing aid (food, medicine and toiletries) to our clients, but I was not involved with addressing the causes of these people needing our help. In no way did this invalidate the work I was engaged in.

You should take note. Challenging our motivations does not help you to win any argument. This is a lazy debate strategy that anyone with a basic knowledge of rhetoric can see right through .

 

[Hank77]

If one believes that full personhood in conferred at conception miscarriages would be the foremost issue that needs to be addressed.

Most pro-life people don't have the medical training to do anything about it on that level. Researchers and doctors do try to keep miscarriages from happening. Here's one study....
Researchers review way to possibly prevent miscarriages - Blogs

However, they do, on an individual basis, try to help keep a miscarriage from happening by helping pregnant moms take good care of themselves and pregnant moms follow their doctors orders in caring for themselves and their unborn child. When they do lose a child by miscarriage or still birth their grief is real, their child has died no matter what age they were.

Abortion would not even be a priority as we are dealing with a disorder that kills the majority of people.

Abortion is something pro-life people believe they can do something about.
More than one thing can be accomplished at the same time, it's not an either/or issue.