We previously discussed last week's House episode featuring surgery on a preborn baby here and here. The the video clip of the pertinent section of the show has been put on YouTube:

[Hat tip: Fran]

Thanks Jill -

I needed that after watching the last post.

You can feel the surgeon's emotions here.He's having an emotional moment.Very moving.

I have some questions.... Assume that the US granted personhood to all humans. If just-conceived zygotes were considered a person who could be murdered, what would happen to women who are unknowingly pregnant and engage in activities that cause termination? Since they are not maliciously killing, I suppose it would end up being some sort of manslaughter? Theoretically, then, a woman who took BC pills could be prosecuted should evidence be found that a conceived zygote was unable to implant in her uterus due to the mucus lining the wall. And what about pre-term babies whose mothers are abusing drugs or alcohol; would they be removed from her womb as children would be removed from her care? I wonder if any anti-choicers have considered these points in light of the argument that "fetuses have rights, too."

Samantha - I will take your points one at a time.

1. "If just-conceived zygotes were considered a person who could be murdered, what would happen to women who are unknowingly pregnant and engage in activities that cause termination? "
***** If they are unknowingly pregnant, then how would you know a termination happened? A charge of manslaughter that cannot be proven isn't going to happen just because a zygot recieves human rights. No one gets charged with Manslaughter if it cannot be proven.

2. "a woman who took BC pills could be prosecuted should evidence be found that a conceived zygote was unable to implant in her uterus due to the mucus lining the wall."
***** If Just-conceived Zygotes receive human rights than Birth Control pills and some other methods of birth control would be outlawed. So a women using these methods would be violating the law.

3. "And what about pre-term babies whose mothers are abusing drugs or alcohol; would they be removed from her womb as children would be removed from her care? "
This would be child endangerment and the woman would go to jail, or a 1/2 way house. Then she wouldn't be able to abuse the children again until they are born. (Can we do this anyway? My cousin adopted a baby that was addicted to crack when born and had fetal alcohol syndrom. He didn't deserve that! He died when he was 5 years old because of all the strain on his body because of all this. He was a beautiful child with a heart of gold, everyone that knew him fell in love instantly. Did I mention he didn't deserve that.)

Valerie about your first point--I have a friend who didnt know she was pregnant until she miscarried because she had an irregular cycle and just didnt think anything about it. I assumed it would be similar to vehicular manslaughter in which you inadvertently cause the death of another during an accident.

FAS is terrible. I imagine a baby's being addicted to crack would have to be just as bad, if not worse. I think if more people like your cousin showed an interest in adopting children with medical problems, women would not be so inclined to abort babies with genetic defects.

***********************
What is the reasonable person standard?

This is not a real person but a legal fiction, an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the ‘average person’ thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to aspire to. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of the reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if he or she does not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances.

The more contentious debate has surround the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may very well not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a "normal" person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack of full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. But those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable.

**************************************
The Reasonable Person Standard

By Minnesota Office of Citizenship and Volunteer Services
From Planning It Safe

The "reasonable person" standard is an objective standard; that is, it may be different than what an individual volunteer or organization considers reasonable. For instance, hospital volunteers without medical training may judge it reasonable to not personally intervene if they see a patient choking. Yet it is reasonable for these volunteers to go for emergency help anyway. The volunteers could be held liable for not seeking assistance.

Besides being an objective standard, the "reasonable person" standard is an adult standard. In other words, it is based on what a reasonable adult would do in the given situation. However, there are three exceptions to this standard. They apply to children, professionals, and standards set by statute. - Children will generally be held to a lesser standard of care than adults. The standard for children is measured by what a child of the same age, experience, and intelligence would do in the same circumstances.

However, this lower standard of care does not apply when children participate in adult activities, such as driving a car or boat. This poses specific concerns for the organization that involves children as volunteers. Among them are the type of training offered, the age and prior experience of the child, and the nature of the volunteer task.

Case law in Minnesota says that this standard also applies to people with mental disabilities.In some circumstances, then, a child might not be held liable for injury. Even so, the organization could be held liable if, for instance, the volunteer task was beyond the child's capability or experience. Assigning a task that is clearly beyond a person's capability is called negligent entrustment.

How do you determine what activities are appropriate for children? Be sure to review OSHA regulations and laws for child labor. Volunteers who are professionals, such as doctors, nurses, lawyers, or accountants, are held to the standard of care for that particular profession. The profession itself usually sets that standard. Generally, this means acting with the same degree of care and skill that other members of the profession would exercise in similar circumstances. This standard applies whether the professional is paid or unpaid.

Standards of care can be set by statute-that is, defined by law. However, violating the statute won't automatically impose liability on a volunteer or organization. Injured persons still need to show that they are protected under the statute, and that the statute intends to prevent the kind of harm they experienced. The kind of negligence involved here is known as "negligence per se". This means that the law defines the duty of care and how that duty is breached.

Samantha -

If she didn't know until after the miscarriage how did she know at all? A pregnancy test wouldn't be accurate with the hormones of a menstural cycle. And how irregualar of a cycle did she have to not have known she was pregnant?

Anyway - to answer this senerio, if it is illegal to purposly cause a miscarriage and someone does unintentionally cause a miscarriage, well, why in the heck would she tell anyone? Plus, how could anyone prove it was intentional or just a natural miscarriage? Unless the unintentional activity was taking the morning after pill, or throwing yourself down the stairs I just don't see this as an issue.

Valerie about your first point--I have a friend who didnt know she was pregnant until she miscarried because she had an irregular cycle and just didnt think anything about it. I assumed it would be similar to vehicular manslaughter in which you inadvertently cause the death of another during an accident.

How are you saying she took part in the child's death? I really don't see what you're saying. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, or missing something...but if she didn't know she was pregnant, and she miscarried, it wasn't her fault at all. Where do you see fault here?

This actually brings up a point that I addressed awhile back...

I don't know about everybody on the pro-life side, but I wouldn't want to see any woman sent to jail for having an abortion.

However, the scum abortion doctors, now these bad boys should get life without parole. If there are no doctors to perform the abortions, then woman would be less likely to get them. And the doctors who are willing to perform them illegally are risking the same punishment that anyone murdering people would risk.

It's the same thing with drug sales. The user gets a fine, but the seller gets jail.

What do you guys think?

mk

Valerie, she was about six weeks pregnant, and her period was two weeks "late" by normal standards. She had gone up to three months between periods before. She realized she had miscarried when the embryo was expelled; its hard to miss something like that.

Bethany, spontaneous abortions can be caused by a variety of methods: taking some medications, excessive drinking or drug use, heavy physical activity. If someone causes the death of a person by accident, it is still sometimes prosecuted. I gave the example of a person who is killed in a car accident. It stands to reason that if a person can be charged with murder for driving drunk, then a woman can be charged with murder for drinking too much after she has had sex and may be pregnant (assuming the zygote had rights).

MK, I think if you are going to prosecute the person performing the procedure, you must prosecute the person commissioning it. Abortions arent forced; they are sought out. Any woman who enters into an abortion without full knowledge of the situation at hand is both oblivious to modern media and unreceptive of the counseling mandated by law.

I don't know about everybody on the pro-life side, but I wouldn't want to see any woman sent to jail for having an abortion.
However, the scum abortion doctors, now these bad boys should get life without parole. If there are no doctors to perform the abortions, then woman would be less likely to get them. And the doctors who are willing to perform them illegally are risking the same punishment that anyone murdering people would risk.
It's the same thing with drug sales. The user gets a fine, but the seller gets jail.
What do you guys think?

I completely agree, MK...I've always felt that way.

Valerie, she was about six weeks pregnant, and her period was two weeks "late" by normal standards. She had gone up to three months between periods before. She realized she had miscarried when the embryo was expelled; its hard to miss something like that.

And that means she caused it, how?

Bethany, she did not cause the miscarriage. Do you know the meaning of the word "hypothetical?" The example of the friend was used to show how women can be pregnant and not know. The engaging in activities that would lead to miscarriage was a hypothetical situation that would present itself as a problem in the event that pre-borns are granted full rights. OMG.

MK -

I disagree. Here's why. If I didn't want my son anymore, but I didn't want him in foster care or with a family member and I took him somewhere to be 'murdered'. (A hit man type thing) Aren't I still responsible?

Of course we have complete confusion when it comes to abortion. Women are constantly being told that it is okay to have one, so now we are confused (as seen by the "Pro-Choice lite" post). This attitude would have to be corrected first. If the law told me it was okay to take my son to the hit man and then the people saw that my son has rights and changed the law, it would take awhile before all responsible parties should be held accountable.

I know this is not a popular position, but I feel that the women need to take responsibility as well as the abortionist. The abortionist wouldn't have a job if it weren't for women going to him.

(Oh Goodness! - I think Samantha and I just agreed again! What is happening to the world! hehehe )

Valerie,

I could see fining the women, but like you said, for awhile, and maybe a long while, I don't think you should imprison them. Most of these women are misguided. I suppose that after awhile, when people start thinking straight again you could put a prison sentence on them.

But I just think that these are, in a sense, crimes of passion. And these women are under great duress.

I wonder if prison would do any good. It might be a deterrent, but what about women who have other children.

It's a tough one, that's for sure.

MK,In answer to your above question.I guess it would depend on the woman's motive for the abortion.All abortionists should definatly go to jail.If you don't regret abortion and you continue to defend it,I have mixed feelings.

MK...you believe that the women who have abortions are misguided and (I assume) that if they were subject to the full truth about the procedure they are undergoing, they would choose otherwise. Why wouldnt you assume that the physicians performing the task are under the same delusions? It seems that the pro-life camp either wants to paint women as suffering and vulnerable or as callous killers, while the abortion doctors are unanimously demonic. I think the truth is just that the majority of women and doctors see the reality of the situation, which is that a human is being killed to preserve bodily autonomy. Im with Valerie; it takes two to tango.

What if I was on this blog telling everyone that I thought gunning somebody down in the streets was okay.What if I added that no penalty should have to be paid by the guilty person for this crime. This is exactly how the abortion debate sounds to me.

One more thing.How about those repeat offenders?You know 6,8,16 abortions.16 murders.Most "lifers" never killed this many people.

Momof3, if you said that you thought that it was okay to gun down people in the streets, I think that would be odd but legal as long as you hadnt revealed a plan that would actually lead to your doing it. You cant be arrested for general comments that go against the norm. It takes something more specific, like hate mail to the pres or an explicit intention. I think abortionists are just more concerned with the mother than the fetus. Anti-choicers are more concerned with the fetus than the mother.

Right Samantha,I understand.It's just that nobody in society[well, perhaps a few] would ever suggest we allow convicted murderers out of prison.What is the difference between a street thug murderer and an abortionist? Or a street thug murderer and a post abortive woman. A lot of these women seem really unbalanced psychologically and they tend to lie. Most are very emotional as well as chemically dependant.I had one that tried to physically beat me up.They seem dangerous.

Momof3 I would understand prosecuting abortionists if abortion were against the law. But Im not sure that jail would be the best place for a post-abortive woman in the state you describe. Wouldnt she be better off in a psychiatric care facility to get help for the problems so that maybe she wouldnt abort again? And the difference, quite simply, is that the abortion participants are not criminals whereas the murderer is.

Yes Samantha,Perhaps the psychiatric care would be better.After all we don't have enough prison space.Not all of them are a danger, I suppose.The ones I've met seem really unbalanced.Sometimes I wonder if they should really be in society.It's ridiculous to think it would ever happen,because it won't.Just something to ponder.

MK -
I disagree. Here's why. If I didn't want my son anymore, but I didn't want him in foster care or with a family member and I took him somewhere to be 'murdered'. (A hit man type thing) Aren't I still responsible?
Of course we have complete confusion when it comes to abortion. Women are constantly being told that it is okay to have one, so now we are confused (as seen by the "Pro-Choice lite" post). This attitude would have to be corrected first. If the law told me it was okay to take my son to the hit man and then the people saw that my son has rights and changed the law, it would take awhile before all responsible parties should be held accountable.
I know this is not a popular position, but I feel that the women need to take responsibility as well as the abortionist. The abortionist wouldn't have a job if it weren't for women going to him.

You're totally right, Valerie. I agree that after a time of women seeing that it is a crime and letting it be understood that if they commit an abortion, it is murder(I think some actually do believe what the pro-abortionists throw out there about the fetus being just a blob and all of that), then certainly, without a doubt, the woman who knows full well what she is doing should be held accountable for her actions. No doubt!

Because I believe that most abortionists are sociopaths and are willing to kill for money.

But I believe that most women are getting abortions as a reaction to fear. I'm willing to cut them some slack because of intent.

The difference between SOMG and you, I believe, is
vast.

If I found that a woman (and of course this would be hard to prove) was having abortions because of a serious flaw in her character such as anti-social behavior in other areas, then I think she would have to be punished too. Like the women who use abortion as birth control.

mk

MK:

Please, be easy on us men.

I have to add to your list though.

Wimps who get woman pregnant and then bale. Yep, yellow, putrid, stinking, cowards to the core, all of them and..................... all
woman abortionists.

SamanthaT:

Is that you sucking air from Mother Earth? What about her bodily automony? It's not nice to fool Mother Nature................or, to steal.

Seriously, bodily autonomy is fiction. The term implies you have control over your own body which you don't. There are many things your body does in which you have no choice over. I mean, apart from having immoral sex, what choice did you have not to get pregnant? How many cancer cells did you kill today SamanthaT? How many times did your heart beat? How many breaths did you take? And here's the trick question, how many hairs are on your head (by the way, that changes by the minute)? Seems like someone who promotes bodily autonomy, is about as slick as saying pro-choice. The term is an oxymoron used by morons because guess what, they know about 0.0000001% of all the possible information that would need to be known to have true bodily autonomy. Please, give the controls to someone else.

And SamanthaT, I've gotta go take a crap, not because I want to but becasue well, there's this thing inside of me that just wants to get out......you know, my body wants to do a fecal abortion. I guess I could stick a plug up my ass and therefore exercise my choice to crap all over my office chair, but still have the luxury of believing that it truly was a choice and not a turd.

My God, what you people will do at self-deception is an art from.

HisMan, I hope you have calmed down a bit now. You are really impossible when you launch off on tangents that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. The right to control what goes on inside one's body is as much intact as any other right in the US. If you want to plug your rectum, go for it, but please keep the information to yourself as I doubt the hundreds of people who read your posts are truly interested in your bowel movements. Its very interesting how you claim to be so pro-life because you think every life is valuable, and yet not only do you slam the opposing viewpoint every chance you get, but you actually compare unborn children to fecal matter.

His Man and Samantha: Well, reading your little exchange has caused me to burst out laughing as a great start to this fine, beautiful morning!

Samantha,
I don't think HisMan was comparing the unborn to fecal matter so much as he was saying that people who support abortion are full of sh**!

:)
mk

lol