Let's say that I agree that abortion is wrong (which is true enough).
Under what circumstances should a miscarriage be investigated as a criminal matter? In this question I include any involved parties. Prosecuting a woman's relatives or loved ones is tantamount to prosecuting her.
Under what circumstances should a healthcare decision be investigated as a criminal matter?
If it is about an innocent life, then which states added funding for healthcare and child care as a part of their abortion trigger laws? Which states restored planned parenthood funding?
I don't think abortion is GOOD. I also don't think it's any of the government's business. Making abortion illegal does not make anyone any more moral. Making abortion illegal does not change anyone's mind about the morality of abortion. Making abortion illegal will not save anyone's soul from damnation. Making abortion illegal WILL increase the number of kids born to mothers in poverty.
> Under what circumstances should a miscarriage be investigated as a criminal matter?
Under what circumstances do we investigate the death of a newborn as a criminal matter today?
> If it is about an innocent life, then which states added funding for healthcare and child care as a part of their abortion trigger laws? Which states restored planned parenthood funding?
I don't understand the line of thinking that says you can't care about stopping intentional killings unless you also want to give them a bunch of free stuff. Example: Able-bodied adults need food to live. I don't want murder of able-bodied adults to be legal. That doesn't mean that I should have to pay for every other able-bodied adult's food for them.
> Under what circumstances do we investigate the death of a newborn as a criminal matter today?
Are you absolutely sure you want to apply the same standard? Do you know how many pregnancies end in miscarriage?
> I don't understand the line of thinking that says you can't care about stopping intentional killings unless you also want to give them a bunch of free stuff.
It's not about the free stuff. When the power of the state stepped in to force the pregnancy to continue, they took responsibility for the life of the person.
You care about "intentional killings of babies". I believe that. I believe that you can imagine the life of the potential person when you see a pregnancy. Do you believe that people should be able to have sex without getting pregnant? Is preventing the fertilization of the egg an acceptable way to prevent the "intentional killing of a baby"? Should the power of the state enforce your belief about contraception? Is preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall acceptable? Should the power of the state step in here?
At what point in the act of intimacy should the power of the state be enforced?
> When the power of the state stepped in to force the pregnancy to continue, they took responsibility for the life of the person.
If the state stops someone from killing me, do they take responsibility for my life from then on too?
> Do you believe that people should be able to have sex without getting pregnant? Is preventing the fertilization of the egg an acceptable way to prevent the "intentional killing of a baby"?
I think both of those should remain legal.
> Should the power of the state enforce your belief about contraception?
No.
> Is preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall acceptable?
No. Once the egg gets fertilized, it's too late for contraception to work, and anything from then on that appears to be contraception is actually just a very early term abortion.
> Should the power of the state step in here?
Yes.
> At what point in the act of intimacy should the power of the state be enforced?
Once conception (i.e., fertizilation) has occurred.
> If the state stops someone from killing me, do they take responsibility for my life from then on too?
Do you really believe this is equivalent? You can't see any distinction here?
> Once conception (i.e., fertizilation) has occurred.
Do you know the percentage of fertilized eggs that make it to the uterine wall? That make it through the first week of pregnancy? That make it through the first trimester?
Should couples register their fertilized eggs with the government so they can be tracked?
> Do you really believe this is equivalent? You can't see any distinction here?
I assume the distinction that you want me to draw is that I'm an independent adult, and the baby isn't. Consider instead, then, if the government saved a toddler's life. Unless the parents died, or were themselves trying to commit the murder and so are now in jail, responsibility for the child in the future will remain with them and not with the government.
> Do you know the percentage of fertilized eggs that make it to the uterine wall? That make it through the first week of pregnancy? That make it through the first trimester?
I know it's low. But the fact that natural deaths are common in a certain situation doesn't automatically make intentional killings in that situation okay. For example, even though the survival rate of Zaire ebolavirus is only 10-17%, it's still murder if you kill someone who has Ebola.
> Should couples register their fertilized eggs with the government so they can be tracked?
No, we don't need more government tracking, and the right to life shouldn't be conditional on being tracked by the government.
Which brings me back to my original question: When should a miscarriage be investigated by the government. Not "when does life start". Not "is abortion morally wrong". Not "is abortion murder". When should the government get involved?
If 50% of fertilized eggs are naturally lost in the first week, how do you decide which should be investigated by the government? Should the government be examining women for IUDs?
> Unless the parents died, or were themselves trying to commit the murder and so are now in jail, responsibility for the child in the future will remain with them and not with the government.
So the mother carries the baby to term. Can she simply leave the hospital without paying after giving birth? Does she have to take the baby home? Does she have to love the baby? Does the government get to enforce that too?
When there's some reason to believe that it might have been intentional.
> If 50% of fertilized eggs are naturally lost in the first week, how do you decide which should be investigated by the government? Should the government be examining women for IUDs?
Couldn't very early abortions like that be effectively stopped just by banning the pills that are meant to cause them, without having to investigate early miscarriages at all? And no, the government generally shouldn't be examining women for IUDs, since that would constitute an unreasonable search without probable cause.
> Can she simply leave the hospital without paying after giving birth?
I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. How would this be any different than leaving the hospital after getting a cast put on a broken bone without paying, or leaving a restaurant after eating without paying?
> Does she have to take the baby home? Does she have to love the baby?
No, she can give the baby up for adoption instead.
> When there's some reason to believe that it might have been intentional.
> Couldn't very early abortions like that be effectively stopped just by banning the pills that are meant to cause them, without having to investigate early miscarriages at all?
It feels very good to be on the righteous side of an argument. Righteousness is a very powerful emotion. It feels good to defend life. It is easy to imagine the future baby.
It feels like preventing a needless death. But most fertilized eggs probably don't make it to live birth. That's a stark fact that does not feel good.
> I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. How would this be any different than leaving the hospital after getting a cast put on a broken bone without paying, or leaving a restaurant after eating without paying?
Because she did not choose to be there. She did not want to go down this path. If a bully breaks your kid's arm, should their family pay the doctor bills? If your date takes you to a restaurant you don't want to go to, should you have to pay the bill?
> No, she can give the baby up for adoption instead.
I don't know you or your religious beliefs, but many people who believe that 'life begins at conception' arrive at that belief through their faith. I would ask that you examine your heart for empathy, and see if your beliefs are consistent with your values, especially when it comes to the power given to the state.
It also seems that you are willing to cut the power of the state very very fine - intentional killing of a fertilized egg is equivalent to killing an infant, but the state does not have a catalog or any way of knowing about all fertilized eggs, so how does it know when to investigate?
The state has no right to know about a woman's IUD, but does have a right to know if she has taken steps to stop that fertilized egg from developing further, if I understand your position correctly.
We get our belief system from our family and friends. We see their values and we see what works for them. We feel righteous when we defend those values. This is true for everyone. It's not "both sides" it's "all humans".
I personally view humankind as my cousins. I don't like all my cousins, I don't agree with everything they do. Some need help, some need to be stopped by force, some are greedy, some are kind. If we're all cousins, then we all have rights, and we have to decide how to balance those rights. A pregnant woman has rights, and an unborn child has rights, and those do need to be balanced. I am comfortable putting the balancing point at some measure of 'viability'. I am not a specialist in pregnancy, so I don't know exactly when that is, but it's definitely not at the moment of conception.
> the state does not have a catalog or any way of knowing about all fertilized eggs, so how does it know when to investigate?
> The state has no right to know about a woman's IUD, but does have a right to know if she has taken steps to stop that fertilized egg from developing further, if I understand your position correctly.
The state can make something illegal without needing intrusive investigative powers to be able to find it. Consider that CSAM is illegal, even though we don't have a national registry of cameras or hard drives, and the government isn't allowed to search your cameras or hard drives for CSAM without probable cause.
Under what circumstances should a miscarriage be investigated as a criminal matter? In this question I include any involved parties. Prosecuting a woman's relatives or loved ones is tantamount to prosecuting her.
Under what circumstances should a healthcare decision be investigated as a criminal matter?
If it is about an innocent life, then which states added funding for healthcare and child care as a part of their abortion trigger laws? Which states restored planned parenthood funding?
I don't think abortion is GOOD. I also don't think it's any of the government's business. Making abortion illegal does not make anyone any more moral. Making abortion illegal does not change anyone's mind about the morality of abortion. Making abortion illegal will not save anyone's soul from damnation. Making abortion illegal WILL increase the number of kids born to mothers in poverty.