 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RainSong
The Argumentive Lunatic
Joined: May 02, 2006
Posts: 4170
Location: Ohio
|
 Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 2:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| LKL wrote: | I can see the point in that, but it's important to realize that a pregnancy does not always = a baby, even when it's wanted. Most miscarriages happen in the first trimester, but later miscarriages happen as well - and babies die during or after birth, too: the placenta comes first, or the cord gets wrapped around the baby's neck, or whatever. It's why Ob-Gyns have some of the highest malpractice insurance rates: everybody wants to find someone to blame when their wanted baby dies during or immediately after birth. The survival rate increases dramatically for every minuite, and then every hour, and then every day that the baby is breathing on its own.
It's terribly sad if a man loses both his wife and his potential child to some murderous nutcase,* but it's not his child, it's his potential child. At 8 months, it's his probable child, but that's still not the same thing.
*this is, of course, setting aside the fact that the father himself is statistically likely to be the murderous nutcase himself. |
It's not talking about miscarriages though; it's talking about cases of crime where there's no way of knowing that the baby may have survived (or not) during the rest of pregnancy or birthing.
Do you think losing a "potential" child is any less painful than losing a child? My mother lost a baby years ago, and it hurts her still; it doesn't matter that that "potential" child never survived outside. It matters that it was still life to her.
Even if the father is the murderer, she might have other family; parents/grandparents (of the unborn), and they'd still want justice.
_________________
"You'll never get to heaven if you're afraid of getting high." |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 32
Posts: 633
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You might not like it, but the fact is that nature (or god, if you prefer) kills tens of thousands of potential children a year with no help from the mother. Nature (or god) kills billions of sperm cells and billions of ova per year. If nature (or god) cared so much about sperm, ova, and potential children, it or he would not be so profligately wasteful of them.
I think that losing a potential child is, yes, less painful than losing a real one - or it should be. If the potential child, which your mind can make into anything it wants, is harder to lose than the actual one, then there's a problem. That aside, though, the fact is that the potential child is not a sure thing. The baby is. The two should not be treated the same; the law should reflect reality.
I think that people in general should be made more aware of how often miscarriages happen, and how often problems with birth happen. If people didn't start thinking 'baby' as soon as they found out that they were pregnant, then it might not be so bad when the inevitable miscarriages did happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Grail Knight
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Posts: 4773
Location: Ontario Canada
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing is a sure thing, LKL.
Babies can die of pneumonia, SIDS, crack-addiction, etc.
It figures that you don't believe in God. I would have guessed.
Everything you've said upsets and disgusts me, LKL. 
Life in all its forms, life in all its forms ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Chibi_Neko
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 24, 2007
Age: 26
Posts: 843
Location: Newfoundland, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RainSong wrote: |
I don't think it necessarily needs to protect women; the crime, like y'all have said, is going to happen anyway. However, it can be more justice for families of the victim.
This is the way I've been thinking of it: suppose a pregnant woman (we'll say eight months, so an advanced stage where the baby could possibly survive if found and cared for in time) is murdered, and her unborn child dies as well (whether the child dies from neglect inside the body or a blow from the killer isn't the point). The family was intending to keep the babe, ect, ect. Now, the husband (we'll throw him in there; whether or not the woman is married isn't really that important, but it helps emphasize the point) is without his wife or child-to-be. Ideally, the criminal should be punished for taking both lives.
If he manages to someone get away with a fairly light sentence (manslaughter or some nonsense charge like that), at least he'd get two with this law. Thus, he'd be punished for not just killing one person, but two. It's more justice for the surviving family, I guess. |
That make a lot of sense and thanks for bringing it up, because unfortanetly cases like this may happen.... however what about a young fetus? How would a law like this treat the situation that you just stated, but rather the baby be 8 months, but 3 months instead?
Or lets try this: A woman who is 3 months pregnant and is on her way to get a abortion... she is assulted and the fetus dies. The woman could just use the fetal death as a excuse to lay an extra charge on the attacker. (The attacker should get a long sentence anyway but you get what I am trying to say)
I am sure this law has it's heart in the right place, but there are too many holes in it.
_________________
Humans are intelligent, but that doesn't make them smart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
RainSong
The Argumentive Lunatic
Joined: May 02, 2006
Posts: 4170
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LKL wrote: | | You might not like it, but the fact is that nature (or god, if you prefer) kills tens of thousands of potential children a year with no help from the mother. Nature (or god) kills billions of sperm cells and billions of ova per year. If nature (or god) cared so much about sperm, ova, and potential children, it or he would not be so profligately wasteful of them. |
Nature (or god, whichever) is not responsible for this particular case though. This is a human being going out and killing another. That potential child could very well have become a real child; there's no way of being sure that it wouldn't have. I don't particularly care about what nature thinks in this instance; it's not involved.
| LKL wrote: | | I think that losing a potential child is, yes, less painful than losing a real one - or it should be. If the potential child, which your mind can make into anything it wants, is harder to lose than the actual one, then there's a problem. That aside, though, the fact is that the potential child is not a sure thing. The baby is. The two should not be treated the same; the law should reflect reality. |
By actual child, I meant one who breathed in the real air for a very, very short time; no more than a few hours. In that case, you can make him/her into anything you want as well.
The baby is not a sure thing either. Babies die all the time, for various reasons. One can have a baby for no more than a day before he/she dies.
To many people, unborn children are still children. It's an emotional bond between them, and the fact that the baby may never have survived long enough to grow up doesn't change that.
In this case, it doesn't really matter whether or not the woman would have lost the unborn child naturally. There's a very real chance that the babe would have survived through the rest of pregnancy and into childhood. It's not nature that's intervening in this; it's a human being who is not the mother and thus should not have a say in whether or not that baby gets the chance to live. It's a crime that's been committed, not a act of natural life.
_________________
"You'll never get to heaven if you're afraid of getting high." |
|
| Back to top |
|
RainSong
The Argumentive Lunatic
Joined: May 02, 2006
Posts: 4170
Location: Ohio
|
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chibi_Neko wrote: | | That make a lot of sense and thanks for bringing it up, because unfortanetly cases like this may happen.... however what about a young fetus? How would a law like this treat the situation that you just stated, but rather the baby be 8 months, but 3 months instead? |
I would think that a young fetus wouldn't be treated much differently than an older one. Obviously, of course, people vary in their definition of when life begins, but every "real" baby went through that stage once. As long as the mother had intended to keep her child, there would be the possibility of it forming into "life" (or whatever people like to call it). Of course, as I'm sure LKL will point out, there's a higher chance of losing the baby then naturally. However, it's not a fact that she would have lost the baby for sure, so it shouldn't be treated any differently, in my opinion.
| Chibi_Neko wrote: | | Or lets try this: A woman who is 3 months pregnant and is on her way to get a abortion... she is assulted and the fetus dies. The woman could just use the fetal death as a excuse to lay an extra charge on the attacker. (The attacker should get a long sentence anyway but you get what I am trying to say) |
I see what you're saying. Presumably, there'd be record of her intending to have the procedure done, at which point the attacker's attorneys may have a good advantage of getting him out of that charge. It wouldn't be correct for her to use that charge, considering she was planning to rid herself of the child anyway, but it's definitely a possibility. I have some faith in our justice department though, and I assume the judge would throw out that charge, or perhaps the grand jury would refuse to indite the attacker for that particular crime.
| Chibi_Neko wrote: | | I am sure this law has it's heart in the right place, but there are too many holes in it. |
Most likely, yeah. I would think that there'd be some fine tuning as it went on, but one never knows.
I just don't understand why so many people here are against it. No where does it state that it affects abortions at all.
_________________
"You'll never get to heaven if you're afraid of getting high." |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 32
Posts: 633
|
| Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
RainSong, I realize that we are talking about an attack and not a natural miscarriage, but I bring up miscarriages because they are relevant to the position that society takes on the value of a fetus. Yes, to you both, born children die as well - but the risk goes down precipitously the older the z/e/f/baby is. A newly fertilized egg has a slightly greater chance of being bled out with menstrual blood or spontaneously aborted (~60%) than it does of becoming a baby. Once it has implanted in the uterus, that risk goes down to something like 40%. Once it gets past 4 months, the risk drops way down again; I don't know the numbers, but less than 15%. Clearly, society should not treat a criminal who destroys a 4-month old pregnancy - or, heavens forbid, an 8 month old one! the same way we would treat a criminal who destroys a 1 month old pregnancy. At 8 months, the fetus would be 'born early' rather than 'spontaneously aborted.'
At any point past 4 months, the fetus is probably going to become a baby, but it's still not a given. The likelihood of death the day before birth is still much higher than the likelihood of death the day after birth. This is simple reality. It's nice to think that everything will turn out fine every time, but that's simply not realistic. The law should reflect reality, not wishful thinking, and the reality is that a z/e/f is a potential or probable baby, not a real one.
Most importantly, though, this law is not necessary. If a man attacks a pregnant woman and kills her fetus, He can already be charged with assault and battery causing grievous bodily harm to the woman. He can be put into jail for years, and he will not be treated respectfully while he is there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
M02
Raven
Joined: Dec 04, 2006
Posts: 103
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What about a women who is 6 months pregnant and is in a serious accident? The baby has to be delivered prematurely due to her injuries. The baby is born deaf and with other injuries due the accident. Is the person who caused the accident liable for the suffering and injuries to the baby or just the mother? |
|
| Back to top |
|
MomofTom
Phoenix
Joined: Aug 06, 2006
Posts: 550
Location: Where normalcy and bad puns collide
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| M02 wrote: | | What about a women who is 6 months pregnant and is in a serious accident? The baby has to be delivered prematurely due to her injuries. The baby is born deaf and with other injuries due the accident. Is the person who caused the accident liable for the suffering and injuries to the baby or just the mother? |
At least here in Michigan, the mother and child can be compensated.
_________________
Apathy is a dominant gene. Mutate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 32
Posts: 633
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's difficult to imagine a situation where a baby would be safer outside the womb at 6 months than inside the womb, unless the mother's uterus and/or the baby's placenta or umbilicus were damaged - in which case, there was some pretty darn significant injury to the mother. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
