woodguru

We all know it isn't a good idea to drink alcohol when you are pregnant, if you care to have as healthy a baby as possible. But who ever really interferes with what women do there?

I know people that go the whole restrictive diets, no coffee, no tobacco, no alcohol, no drugs...

But at this time there are no laws about doing any of this. So where will the line be between a miscarriage, which has never had any legal implications leading towards criminal prosecution for murder.

And make no mistake this slippery slope is there when dealing with different degrees of over zealous religious whack jobs.

I can see women who had miscarriages being put through all manners of legal hell being made to prove they didn't intentionally abort their pregnancy.

Let the witch hunts and trials begin.

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

If a woman behaves in such a way that is detrimental to the life of the baby she is carrying then she should be held accountable.

And don't worry about "religious whack jobs" you whack job!

son of witless

You have a fertile imagination. Were these things common before Roe verses Wade ? What else does your imagination tell you ?

Sonny Magoo Loc: Where pot pie is boiled in a kettle

Do drugs and have a f'd up baby in my state and see if you take the baby home!
NOT!

archie bunker Loc: Texas

This guy is the worst!! And, I agree with you.
My wife had two miscarriages before she could carry a baby to term. No alchohol, tobacco, or anything. Each one crushed her soul.
Any person who can spout crap like this is pure evil in my mind.

youngwilliam Loc: Deep in the heart

He is d********g

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

It's left wing whack jobs who have ignored when life begins.

Wonttakeitanymore

Ur are a total zombie! Miscarriages are accidental in most cases

EmilyD

A miscarriage is a natural termination of a pregnancy, meaning the body expels the pregnancy on it’s own without the aid of medicine or a forced termination. The woman does NOT have a choice in this matter.

An a******n is an unnatural termination of an unwanted pregnancy by an outside force, usually by vacuum aspiration (the a******n method that is most common). The woman has a choice to continue the pregnancy (and give up for adoption, if warranted) or k**l the infant.

robertv3

The slippery slope is there, yes.

The whole problem area comes from people trying to impose a discrete marker upon a continuum.

The continuum is life, of various types, and development of each life, in various "stages" or moments along the continuum.

Some species are more developed than others, so they are more important, but there is no single dividing line between which species are important and which aren't.

Some levels of development of an animal, or a human, or a fetus, or a partially or fully grown entity, are more important than others; but there is no single dividing line between which levels are important and which aren't.

As a practical matter, the dividing lines "human" versus "non-human" and "born" versus "not-born" are very likely the best dividing lines we can have in the foreseeable future. They are practical dividing lines. But even the "human" versus "non-human" idea has been problematic in history, because there were so many people disagreeing about which entities are human and which aren't. There were a lot of people, who were taught to call themselves "White", who believed that "non-White" people were not human in the same sense as White people were. From this belief they thought it was alright to k**l or ens***e many people who by today's standards were human. The solution to this kind of problem is to stop making discrete lines where unnecessary. Rather than saying "all respect goes to this kind" and "no respect goes to these other kinds", it is better to say "some respect is accorded to all kinds".

pegw

I have heard up to 20% of all pregnancys result in spontaneous a******ns, also called miscarriages. So if you go after women for that, you have a big problem.

Bevvy

All orders and degrees of men had helped to fill the measure of the nation's guilt. The people that had any power abused it,
and even the buyers and sellers find some way to oppress one another. It bodes ill to a people when judgments are breaking in
upon them, and the spirit of prayer is restrained. Let all who fear God, unite to promote his t***h and righteousness;
as wicked men of every rank and profession plot together to run them down.

robertv3

You wrote: "It's left wing whack jobs who have ignored when life begins."

"when life begins", you say? Then say what that is outright: tell us: when does life begin? or when do you think it does?

Or are you one of those "right wing whack jobs" who are either too ignorant or too arrogant to say a thing plainly for others to see?

EmilyD

Tell us: Why is a******n such a huge issue? Why such a ruckus about it: protests, marches, parades....why all the hoopla??? It's because of the question of probable murder of innocent human life.

Isn't it better to err on the side of life? This issue is based on opinions - some pro and some con...but if there is any doubt - ANY DOUBT AT ALL - that a life might be terminated unnecessarily, then a******ns should not be approved for any reason, not even rape or incest, and even, in my opinion, the potential life of the mother (the baby's life is more important than the mother's!)

It is very, VERY possible that at least one of the 800,000+ a******ns every year resulted in the death of a human being. And even if it is only once out of 800,000+ a******ns that a life is saved, then banning a******ns - the intentional, pre-meditated k*****g of an innocent life - should be addressed as if it is a homicide.

robertv3

I very much disagree with your statement. I am disagreeing with it on logical grounds, as follows:

You wrote: "... if there is any doubt - ANY DOUBT AT ALL - that a life might be terminated unnecessarily, then a******ns should not be approved for any reason ...".

Consider the following statement, which I just now made up, and which, I believe, is logically equivalent to your statement.

"If there is any doubt - ANY DOUBT AT ALL - that someone might die as a result of an action, then that type of action should never be approved for any reason."

A great many actions, even some we consider very normal, might result in an unnecessary death.

Example 1: driving a car on a public road. We know that some people are going to die every day from driving accidents on the roads. They are unnecessary deaths. These unnecessary deaths by driving accidents could be prevented if everybody just stopped driving. Some such fatal accidents happened by reason of kids having fun joyriding or showing off to their friends by driving fast, yet _some_ such fatal accidents happened because of _another_ "reason"(!) such as some driver momentarily not paying enough attention to the road -- the type of thing which is sure to happen if enough people drive enough times. The statement disallows the driving for all reasons if even one reason (showing off to friends by driving fast) might lead to a death.

Example 2: passing another vehicle, on a two-lane highway (the kind that has one lane going one way, and the other lane going the other way). Passing on such roads increases the likelihood of deaths by collision with an oncoming car. The vast majority of those deaths (presumably) are unnecessary deaths. (Exceptions might be emergency situations such as where an ambulance has to pass to get a patient to the emergency room on time.) To prevent that kind of accident, everybody (except maybe ambulance drivers) could stop passing on such roads.

Example 3: medical procedures. Some of them result in deaths which would not have occurred if the patient had just stayed home instead. They're not really necessary deaths. For example, I had an operation a couple of years ago. It was pretty safe, but there was still some small chance I could have died an unnecessary death from it. (Maybe it was a 0.00001 percent chance of death.). All it was was a hernia repair; I could have LIVED a long time without that operation being done (I just would have been a lot weaker for the rest of my life, as a result of the unrepaired hernia). There will always be _some_ chance of death from such an operation, though the chance might be very small.

Example 4: enforcing the law. Some deaths result from using force while enforcing laws. And yet, we consider it normal that force is one of the options that sometimes has to be used when enforcing some laws. To prevent the occasional deaths by law enforcement, the first thing we could do is just prevent law enforcement from ever using force at all, because (revisiting the statement (the version I made up)):

"If there is any doubt - ANY DOUBT AT ALL - that someone might die as a result of an action, then that type of action should never be approved for any reason."

And _your_ statement, which I had quoted above, was, again:

"... if there is any doubt - ANY DOUBT AT ALL - that a life might be terminated unnecessarily, then a******ns should not be approved for any reason ..."

So my disagreement is about the logic of your statement.