15-Year-Old Girl Faces Life in Prison for a Miscarriage?

reply to post by Malcher


and, this is a problem for just pregnant women???

why the special treatment for just the pregnant women???

These people are sick :-#...s What is wrongwith peeps...

reply to post by Gorman91

And that would be subjective because we do not know how the child will end up.

I dont care how the child will end up, it is not important for my morality.

Objectively it is bad because the possibility of a potential contribution to humanity is stopped.

Stopping of a potential contribution to humanity is not objectively bad. Nothing is.

Yes there are objective goods as I have explained.

Knowledge equates to better survival, better ability to support yourself, and better ability to supply others. This is objectively good.

This is not objectively good, you have just stated so without any objective evidence. Nothing is objectively good.

No, limiting the poor is not good because it only deals with survival. There is a removal of culture, of opinion, of mind. Poverty may be fixed by a poor man who learns how to fix it, versus a person with wealth who hasn't got a clue about the poor...such as yourself.

This is a subjective opinion, that it is not good, nothing more. I believe it is worth the positive effects.

Yes, and you've not provided something physical to go against it.

There is no such thing. We are both just stating our subjective moral opinions not substantiated by anything more than what "feels" right to us. The sooner you understand this, the sooner we can move on. Probably never, as I see..

Then why are you claiming that the person is in those networks?

Because it is. After surgery, the person is still present in those networks that were left there. Retarded and disabled person after surgery deserves protection only because of their actuality, with no regards to their potential.

My comments about animals are justified because they do not have human level reasoning and they deal with what decays humans, what affects animals is really irrelevant to man unless it makes them less healthy to eat.

This is morally very wrong to me.

Your comment about this superhuman is disgusting because it does not afford him the right to get to where he can. It would be no different than killing a child before he an reach college and saying its ok cause he wasn't in college yet.

Mindless bodies have no such right. Also, it would be different to your example, because a child is sentient, and has a mind. But it is an analogy with abortion, which is not disgusting or wrong according to my morality.

One is focused on us, the other focused on creatures in which it honestly doesn't matter if they die from a grenade or a painless shot to the head. Don't affect humans either way. And if you cannot see that, then thank God you'll never be able to make laws and people never will vote for someone like you.

Numerous laws against animal abuse and for legality of abortion prove that people tend to support my moral system over yours. As for your first sentence, frankly you sound like some psychopath..

I am fixed on potential.

And that is our disagreement.

And a child just born is not. You can disagree with me, but don't claim you can support you claim they are when you cannot. Sentience involves consciousness. The ability to be subjective. A baby doesn't even know it has the ability to choose an opinion. Smack a baby and he'll cry, give him some food or a smile and suddenly he'll forget and start to laugh. babies are not conscious beings. Ergo, they are not sentient.

If babies dont have mind and are just some automatons with no internal experiences, then killing them is not morally wrong. That is what flows from my moral system. Whether they are or not is in the realm of neuroscience. I do disagree with you indeed, and I am sure every neurologist would agree with me that they are conscious or sentient. But that is not important for our ideological discussion, but for practical application of it. This conundrum is similar to philosophical problem of other minds, if you want to take it ad absurdum:

en.wikipedia.org...

How about you justify your claim? Hell, I can even go ahead and say a person in a deep enough state of meditation can become completely disconnected to sentience, like Thích Quảng Đức. If someone kills them, because at that moment they are not sentient, does the killer go free?

Good point. Presence of mind (encoded in the neural network of higher brain in humans) is more accurate basic criterion than sentience, if we are talking about protection of right to life. I dont know about your obscure example, but even people under general anesthesia are temporarily not sentient, while we are at it. I will have to formulate my ideas better to avoid misunderstandings.

reply to post by Maslo

I dont care how the child will end up, it is not important for my morality.

Well that would be why morality is invalid.

Everything else you said is pretty much nullified by this fact. Good day sir.

difficult subject here!

A close relative fell pregnant at 18, she took all types of drugs through out the pregnancy, baby was born with hare lip and cleft palete, (is that the right way round?) He was seriously deformed, has had lots of operations and will continue to do so, into adult hood.

I felt very sorry for her and the little one, until I watched her become pregnant again, doing the same thing yet again!

Much as I love her, I really do believe she should have been charged with endangering life, or similar.

A 15 year old, is in a different situation, she is still a child and children make some bad mistakes, but they shouldn't have to carry the legal consequences for the rest of their lives, the emotional ones will be a heavy enough burden.

I am all for criminalising adult women who damage their unborn babies though, I know that in my families situation, had the relative been punished, she would have been a lot more careful about falling pregnant a second time. In todays society where termination is easily available and contraception is reliable, there really is no excuse.

Would be interested to know why the lady in question is being dealt with now? Surely common sense dictates that if she is to be tried for a "crime" commited as a child, she should be dealt with as a child. Yes, the guy who impregnanted her should be held to account at the same time