Bill introduced to propose unborn as victims of crime

Post Reply New Topic

No, I mean helping people who are having trouble conceiving with methods other than IVF - natural medicine, herbal remedies, etc etc.

I am actually in the process of finding someone who does fertility charting though so I can keep a closer eye on my own cycles using thermo-monitoring (basically measuring your temperature with a very sensitive thermometer every day, as your temperature fluctuates according to where you are in your cycle) so I can avoid that ovulation week when it's most likely you'll fall pregnant - there's apparently only a week or so every month where you can conceive. Most people use it when trying to conceive, but you can also use it in conjunction with other barrier methods to be extra-careful, just as added protection. I'd never use it on its own, but it's still just another thing to help prevent this happening again.

It's a bit more advanced than the rhythm method.

Leah, email or PM me if you wish. My husband and I did NFP/Fertility Awareness for a couple of years. It was actually really neat to find patterns in behavior, food cravings, mood swings, and other body functions.

i went to a catholic school and a catholic group came over to teach us about contreception. anyway they told us the failure rates of methods like condoms and the pill but when it came to the rhythm method all they talked about was the success rate.
as you can imagine when they left everyone was talking about the way they tried to shove it down our throats. even my religious education teacher thought it was stupid.

i heard that the intention of a bill like this was to try and stop violent men from beating their pregnant wives in order to kill the baby as the thought in their brain is "the baby doesn't count i can do what i want to it."

Beating one's wife is already illegal, whether she is pregnant or not.

There's a certain garment worn by men who instigate domestic violene. It's a white cotton undershit, sleeveless.

The Wifebeater.

Isn't that horrible?

That was one of the pointsthat protesters where tying to make in town....
How is would this law protect women any more? If someone is beating a pregnant woman, I don't think they care about the fetus, let alone the woman that is carrying it.

A Catholic group would not trry to sell you on contraception, that's for sure. As we know, the Church is very much anti-contraception. This platform is balanced by the Church's equally negative stance on sexual promiscuity.

But the rhythm method must be more "organic" to be boosted by the Catholic Church. A woman's menstrual rhythms studied here kind of like a a Roulette wheel ... with the couple betting on 10Black in order to conceive. If you can pinpioint the most fertile part of the cycle, that means you can plan around it as well.

Brilliant.

except for the little problem that the week excluded is the week a woman enjoys sex the most. Doesn't affect the man any, though, so it's ok!

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.

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.

Sperms be alive too y0! Genocide ftw!

Potential child, probable child ... are these of lesser importance than a post-natal child? The cause & effect relationship linking these stages of life is pretty damned obvious. Potential and probable children are more disposeable then post-natals, are they? Less important somehow? It is not all about the mother.

And yes, sperm-cells are alive. And just as important.

*sings* Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted God gets quite irate...

Sorry, someone had to say it...

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 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.

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 ...