An odd position for you to take, Tony1 After all, how do we know that the mother didn't do something to cause the miscarriage? Or, at any rate, to not prevent it. Did she fall down the stairs? If wore socks on a wood staircase, then she is negligent in the death of what you claim to be a life. If she took a medicine, even one listed as safe for pregnant women, without first consulting her doctor, then she has been negligent. Manslaughter, then? How is it that you suddenly trust human nature? The "honest mistake"? If that fetus is a citizen, then the mother in whom it grows is fully responsible for its protection and development. There are, therefore, no honest mistakes. Like the honest mistake when a neighbor backed a car over an infant? Sure, it was an honest mistake, but he was drunk at the time. Does that absolve the honest mistake? What if that drunk man backs over his wife? We can charge him with both deaths. What if the woman consumed alcohol during her pregnancy, or smoked? Here's the bedeviling question, just for you. Ironically, my high school ethics teacher, a staunch pro-lifer, nearly died trying to carry a child to term. Her difficulty conceiving was fairly unique, and one of the best fertility experts in the country treated her. (Believe me, we got to hear all about this.) She even bragged to her students that she was "beating the odds" by being pregnant; that it was hard for her to conceive and her doctor told her she may not be capable of carrying to term. In the end, the pregnancy miscarried and nearly killed my teacher. What to do, then? She would not have been pregnant without artificial techniques, and do we then prosecute the doctor for malpractice? And the mother for conspiracy, since she was a willing participant? The fetus is a citizen, you say? Why don't you support that by telling us these simple things about how that should work in society. Your failing point to Bambi, regarding the murder of millions of US citizens, hinges on your ability to establish the fetus as a citizen. The above-noted considerations merely constitute those gathered on a few moments thought, and a period of reflection thereupon. Please note that I'm also trying to hold you to a point of integrity: as we see in the issue of a simple miscarriage--we must bear in mind your biblical mandate to distrust people. It does not appear that there is room for an honest mistake. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Even the Bible (U.S. law even) is aware of the difference between accidental and intentional murder. Why aren't you? And sometimes it's nobodies fault. If a mother does anything that could harm the unborn child and ends up harming the unborn child it's her fault. If the unborn child dies from whatever it was the mother did, it's the mother's fault. If the mother wants to make herself feel better by calling the unborn child a piece of tissue then that's her choice. If complications outside the realm of medicine arise by no cause of anyone, then it's nobodies fault and there's no reason to try to justify it's death. Ben
Like I said, KalvinB ... manslaughter? After all, I didn't mean to take my car out on the road while the vehicle was unsafe and cause the deaths of others. Yeah, it's why the law calls it manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and other things than murder. Tony1 asserted that the unborn are citizens. Such are the myriad complexities of making that a reality. So if it's the mother's fault, then it's the mother's fault. And this woman has allowed by negligence, the death of a citizen she is directly responsible for. Presently, we have a debate about secondhand smoke and pregnant women: if a woman lets her husband smoke while she's pregnant, she's making that decision for that alleged citizen within her, as well. If her choice to expose that citizen to harmful chemicals hurts that citizen, it isn't an accident. It seems to me that you're trying to sidestep an issue that looks too complex for your conscience. Just because you haven't thought these things through doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered. If the mother does not prepare herself for travel, and thus slips on the wooden stairs, her negligence is the reason for the accident. Were my preparatory negligence responsible for the death of a construction worker, or a driver on the road, I would be held responsible. By Tony1's assertion that fetuses are citizens, these considerations are necessary. Did you even understand that part, that the fetuses are citizens in the present argument? By Tony1's establishment of fetuses as citizens, these are necessary questions to resolve. Pay more attention to what you're responding to, KalvinB. You wrote: Even the Bible (U.S. law even) is aware of the difference between accidental and intentional murder. Why aren't you? My response to you is that your statement has nothing to do with the present circumstance except for the fact that you're asking a question that's already addressed; I understand what US law says, but that's the point: Tony1 is arguing a separate condition from the present. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"If the mother does not prepare herself for travel, and thus slips on the wooden stairs, her negligence is the reason for the accident. Were my preparatory negligence responsible for the death of a construction worker, or a driver on the road, I would be held responsible. " What does being a citizen have to do with that? If one kills and illigal alien accidently they're just as accountable as if they killed a citizen accidently. In the case of an accidental death it's possible to not press charges. The father chould very well press charges against the mother for the death of his child if he wanted to. In the case of a construction worker the odds of not having charges pressed against you are pretty slim. It's up to the victim or the relatives of the victim to press the charges in accidental and intentional deaths. Not the state or government. Ben
Almost but not quite You seem to be missing the point, or else sidestepping it. Tony1 has claimed that these fetuses are citizens, and that the United States kills millions of its own citizens a year. To be a citizen is an elevated status compared to the present regard for fetuses. If I fall off my house and die accidentally, the coroner's report will note the accidental death and investigative steps will be taken to ensure that I wasn't pushed. What if that coroner's report notes that the death occurred from blunt and heavy impact resulting from an accidental fall? And what if that fall was the result of preparatory negligence? You seem to be avoiding the issues brought up by declaring a fetus to be a citizen empowered with its according rights in society. Right ... compared to the fetus the reason for this is the present difference we assign between John the 30 year-old construction worker who died when the scaffolding collapsed (due to my intentional cost-cutting that left a crew 30 stories up without proper support) and a woman falling down the stairs because she's wearing socks instead of slippers or shoes. If my negligence results in the death of a construction worker, I can as you have noted, expect to be punished. However, in the fetus, if we accept Tony1's assertion of citizenship, why isn't the mother responsible for her negligence that results in the death of a citizen? Not when the relatives are suspects. Every child a wanted child, every miscarriage a criminal act. Do you realize that what we've stumbled across is an issue at the center of the abortion debate? It's why, when viewing the whole of the Christian anti-sexuality and anti-woman platform, people draw conclusions of misogyny. To empower the pro-life image of the world, we will reduce women to breeding factories; if it's a life from conception with full legal rights and privileges, as would be awarded by Tony1's declaration of citizenship, then a woman would not be allowed the liberty to exist of her own will: everything she did must be focused toward the child she carries. Any miscarriage would require full investigation to clear the mother of impropriety. After all, she may willingly have inhaled some auto exhaust or cigarette smoke; she may have exerted herself too hard and deprived the fetus its necessary oxygen. The result of which, of course, is that people would stop reproducing--every child a wanted child--in general, and the Christian press against birth control would come down to an issue of woman serving man again. Now perhaps relegating women to the role of production machinery is an attractive notion to some. I, however, prefer them in the role of human beings. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Tony1 I dont believe that I am actually saying this but - I agree with Tony1 on one score - that all unborn children are children - I am firmly against abortion unless it be a necessary medical emergency. Not for any religious reasons, I just feel that life is so very precious and any woman these days who gets herself pregnant (not counting rape of course) then she/they should carry the can so to speak, have the child and bring it up. We have so many contraceptive devices these days, unwanted pregnancies should be a thing of the past. Before Tony1 gives us some line from some version of the bible - dont! I think about this on purely ethical grounds and not religious based in any way shape or form. A child is a sacred human, not to be tampered with by "uncaring" people or medical staff. I dont know what the time limitations is on abortions elsewhere but here in the UK the unborn child is formed by the limit, which is 26 weeks I believe, but may be a few weeks out.
Since when is Christianity anti-sexuality and anti-women? Some Christians are but apparently they haven't read "The Song of Solomon" or the NT. I suppose you think the Christian God would have prefered a man to do Mary's job but since it just wasn't possible he reluctantly went with it. "To be a citizen is an elevated status compared to the present regard for fetuses." I think calling it human would be a good start. "everything she did must be focused toward the child she carries" No kidding. It doesn't take religion to realize the importance of taking care of a baby before and after it's born. I suppose we should deny citizenship until they're 18 and can get their own damn bottle. After all, we shouldn't expect the mothers to give up their will to take care of it. Wouldn't want a political issue when a mother kills a citizen because she exercised her will to watch TV and not to get the bottle when it started crying. Citizenship adds nothing to the discussion. The issue is purely who's responsible for the death of the child and was it intentional. If a mother is constantly sucking on an exhaust pipe or not taking an effort to avoid other harmful fumes then yes the mother is at fault. Just because no one presses charges doesn't make her any less guilty. It's certainly as much an option in the case of a neglegent mother as it is for a neglegent corp. Ben
You're almost there, KalvinB Right ... you seem to be getting this. However, you seem to be hung up on the significance of citizenship. Ask Tony1, it's his standard. This phase of the discussion starts with the assertion that the US government kills millions of its own citizens through abortion. What you're not grasping, then, because of your hang-up on what citizenship has to do with anything is that when we start treating women like factory machinery, they'll still f--k like demons, but they'll be using birth control, and fewer women will allow themselves to reproduce. Maybe this is a positiive result anyway, the lower birth rate. But it doesn't change the fact that we would be reducing women to mere equipment. Now perhaps turning women into factory equipment is a good idea to you, but most of us find it just a bit ridiculous. Think about it: is abortion murder? Then making the simple mistake of not wearing slippers or shoes, and thus falling down the stairs and miscarrying your child constitutes negligent homicide. When you impose such a standard, who will submit themselves to it? As to Christianity being anti-sexuality: I don't care what the Bible says when Chrisitans nationwide are pressing against abortion, against birth control, against sex ed, and against personal liberty. Christians in the United States are for the most part anti-sexuality. You're right that just because nobody presses charges doesn't mean there's no guilt. Apply it, KalvinB ... every woman faces a choice every time they have sex, and that choice is whether or not to forfeit their standing in society by becoming pregnant. Why would anyone do that? Imagine spending nine months behaving according to the restrictions of the law: imagine that if you miscarry, you will be forced to prove that you did nothing to cause it. Would you do it? Would you eat, sleep, bathe, and live according to the law for nine months? Never going out for fear of harm to the child or overexertion of the mother? Is it something you are capable of conceiving, what would happen if all miscarriages were investigated as potential homicides? thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm just not getting how we're getting from being responsible for a life to baby factory. Also why is being responsible for an unborn thing/human/citizen going to make it so that a mother is guilty until proven innocent if it dies for some reason? In a typical muder investigation whether or not it's a homocide, suicide or accidental is decided first. Then the suspect is looked for. The only difference for a mother is that the suspect is obvious. Aren't infant deaths investigated already anyway if they seem suspicious? Ben
There's an issue Fair enough, and I hope to explain that simple transition. Look around next time you're in public. Count off in your head the number of pregnant women you see. A, B, C, D .... Woman A miscarries; the investigation into this death of a citizen leads to the conclusion that it could have been prevented. Woman A went out in the cold of winter to do some unnecessary shopping and gabbing with her friends, and the influenza virus she picked up wreaked enough havoc in her body that she took a medication without calling her doctor and thus miscarried. Her negligence--both in going out into unsafe conditions (for that is how these things start) and in taking medication without calling her doctor both form a criminal negligence. It's a sticky one, isn't it? But is it any different than allowing any other irresponsibility to harm another person? Woman B miscarries. The investigation into this death of a citizen shows that Woman B miscarried when she fell down the stairs. Further investigation shows that Woman B chose not to wear her slippers, with grip on the sole, and instead slipped down the stairs in a pair of sweatsocks. Her irresponsibility caused this death. Woman C miscarries. The investigation shows that the best cause that can be determined is stress. Woman C, fearing for her status at the company, kept working as long as possible. Woman D miscarries. The investigation reveals that she had a several glasses of wine. Fill in the details if you need. Taking medication for illness; walking around your house in socks; doing your job as best you can; having wine. What about these things is criminal? Nothing, in and of themselves. But these decisions have contributed to the death of citizens. Do you understand that the result of considering fetuses citizens is that women will become wholly obliged to their pregnancies to the point that they will not wish to be pregnant? Think of this: a passenger in your car can shield his face to protect against flying glass if you lose control and hit something. That fetus cannot: if the mother drinks, so does the fetus. If the mother medicates, so does the fetus in many cases. If the mother slips and falls down the stairs because of her own negligence, on any other day that would be fine. But with that citizen lodged inside her body, she owes it consideration and cannot be taking such risks as walking around the house in socks. Do you understand how martial that can become? As we subjugate the woman's rights to those of the fetus, she becomes a mere piece of equipment to be mounted, fertilized, and locked in a safe room to follow every instruction her male doctor (for all the women should be barefoot and pregnant) gives her lest she somehow be responsible for the death of a citizen. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Do you understand that the result of considering fetuses citizens is that women will become wholly obliged to their pregnancies to the point that they will not wish to be pregnant?" I don't think so. Most mothers of their own will, when pregnant, do everything in their power to keep the baby healthy already which means giving up some of their usual activities. Women are typically aware that having a baby means not doing many things they once did. Women already don't have children because of that despite the fact they aren't recognized as citizens. Only paranoid mothers lock themselves away from society and it doesn't take calling a baby a citizen to do that. But then again by your logic it should already be just as illegal to smoke around a baby once it's born. But it's not and it's a citizen and it's just as likely to die from some disease acquired by second hand smoke as though it were in the womb. If you're carrying the baby in your arms and fall down the stairs you've just killed a citizen. Or if you're not watching and they fall in the pool and drown. Parents have been charged with neglect for that. Do you suggest we give a 9 month "grace" period where if they screw up and kill the baby they aren't legally responsible? Like I said, maybe we shouldn't make them citizens until their 18 so we don't have to risk legal action against mother's because they handled their child irresponsibly. A mother is just as responsible for the health and well being of a child before it's born as after. Ben
*Originally posted by tiassa After all, how do we know...* Quite honestly, I cannot answer how you would know anything at all. *How is it that you suddenly trust human nature? The "honest mistake"? If that fetus is a citizen, then the mother in whom it grows is fully responsible for its protection and development. There are, therefore, no honest mistakes. Like the honest mistake when a neighbor backed a car over an infant? Sure, it was an honest mistake, but he was drunk at the time. Does that absolve the honest mistake? What if that drunk man backs over his wife? We can charge him with both deaths. What if the woman consumed alcohol during her pregnancy, or smoked?* Who are talking to? You read an incredible amount into a single word, "no" which was the sum total of my last post. *...In the end, the pregnancy miscarried and nearly killed my teacher. What to do, then? She would not have been pregnant without artificial techniques, and do we then prosecute the doctor for malpractice? And the mother for conspiracy, since she was a willing participant?* We would do nothing, just like we would do nothing about someone who "nearly" stole something, or someone who "nearly" jaywalked, or someone who "nearly" trespassed, etc. *The fetus is a citizen, you say? Why don't you support that by telling us these simple things about how that should work in society.* They have the same right not to vote until they are eighteen, they have the same right not to work until they are eighteen, they have the right to be represented by lawyers, etc. What is it about a fetus that establishes that it is not a citizen? *Your failing point to Bambi, regarding the murder of millions of US citizens, hinges on your ability to establish the fetus as a citizen.* If that were my point then it might fail. However, that wasn't my point. *Please note that I'm also trying to hold you to a point of integrity: as we see in the issue of a simple miscarriage--we must bear in mind your biblical mandate to distrust people. It does not appear that there is room for an honest mistake.* I'll let yours go. *If the mother does not prepare herself for travel, and thus slips on the wooden stairs, her negligence is the reason for the accident.* On the contrary, all of the scientific literature points to the sufficiency of the protection of the fetus, without any special requirements. Some special requirements are identified, but they are easily refuted from scientific literature by the preponderance of contradictory views. *To be a citizen is an elevated status compared to the present regard for fetuses.* Actually, it is a very ordinary status. Everyone who does not come into the US from outside the US, defaults to citizen status. Even those who are born outside the US, but who, oddly enough, were fetuses in the US are accorded citizenship. This last one is such a strange thing, since the US government seems to regard its fetuses as its citizens. Otherwise one would be forced to argue that a non-resident alien can be automatically granted citizenship. *a woman falling down the stairs because she's wearing socks instead of slippers or shoes.* What would be your proof that wearing socks is the cause of such a fall, when millions of people who wear socks do not fall? *if it's a life from conception with full legal rights and privileges, as would be awarded by Tony1's declaration of citizenship* I'm not the only one who thinks that. A child born outside the US can claim citizenship based solely on the fact that it was a citizen as a fetus. Otherwise, US immigration policy has some very strange loopholes, exempting certain non-resident aliens, but not others, from automatic citizenship. *I don't care what the Bible says when Chrisitans nationwide are pressing against abortion, against birth control, against sex ed, and against personal liberty.* You seem to have a strange concept of sexuality. To you sexuality appears to be.... 1. grinding up little children into hamburger 2. applying plastic devices or ingesting chemicals prior to sex 3. going to school 4. screwing anything that moves No wonder you are so warped. *she becomes a mere piece of equipment to be mounted, fertilized* Isn't that pretty much how you view women anyway, especially when you get horny?
Tony1 You are becoming rather predictable and VERY VERY boring. No disrespect but lighten up for heavens sake. I am getting very ****** off reading your repetitive mails. If you have nothing new to say - refer to your lil old book! At least other correspondents in this and other forums try to be objective, right or wrong! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
*Originally posted by Red Devil You are becoming rather predictable and VERY VERY boring.* You're a real ray of sunshine, too. *If you have nothing new to say - refer to your lil old book!* OK. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Corinthians 1:18-25, KJV).
rays of enlightenment from ye olde book Thanks Tony1 - knew I could rely on you! Now can I go back to the real world? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Xmas Presents - Tony1 Note: Tony1. Boxing gloves. He has punched hell out of that bible - he needs new ones! Now where's that unsubscribe button? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
*Originally posted by Red Devil Note: Tony1. Boxing gloves. He has punched hell out of that bible - he needs new ones! Now where's that unsubscribe button?* Do I sense a certain agitation? Is your only response to new ideas to run away?
Tony1 Very few of your ideas are new. Many of them are statistically deviant from the mainstream, but since you decry the majority of those who call themselves Christians, this is hardly an issue to concern ourselves with. To the other, when certain issues are repeatedly explained to you, and you repeatedly pollute threads with the same old pucky you're best known for at Sciforums, what more can anyone do? You seem determined to ignore the issues people put up in the forum in order to criticize them for holding ideas you invent, and to remind us all of how important winning and losing is to you. Really, Tony1, the day you have a new idea, we'll all stick around at least long enough to do the Wave. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! JokeZ, have you ever actually read the Bible? I don't mean the verses they teach you in sunday school, I mean the entire thing front to back? Because it doesn't say any of those things you said. Some choke you with religion christians might, and God forgive us when we look like fools and call ourselves representing Him. But the Bible has no deciet, nor does God. The deciet comes in mans twisting of it. Forget what man says, forget the pastor, read the Bible front to back yourself, if only as a study or a curiosity. Then tell me if it really seems that way to you.
