Abortion Penalty

[Ryko]

When I first brought it up I clarified that it prevents implantation and doesn't kill a fertilized fetus but I guess everyone missed it.

[aurik]

When I first brought it up I clarified that it prevents implantation and doesn't kill a fertilized fetus but I guess everyone missed it.

Hardcore pro-lifers would argue that's no different than refusing to feed a child, thereby killing it via neglect.

[divisortheory]

When I first brought it up I clarified that it prevents implantation and doesn't kill a fertilized fetus but I guess everyone missed it.

Hardcore pro-lifers would argue that's no different than refusing to feed a child, thereby killing it via neglect.

Which goes back to my one of my earlier arguments, that we should criminalize the act of not having sex.

[Saphirea]

When I first brought it up I clarified that it prevents implantation and doesn't kill a fertilized fetus but I guess everyone missed it.

Hardcore pro-lifers would argue that's no different than refusing to feed a child, thereby killing it via neglect.

It's still a form of contraception which is still denounced by the Church. Killing a child by neglect is obviously murder as well.

[divisortheory]

When I first brought it up I clarified that it prevents implantation and doesn't kill a fertilized fetus but I guess everyone missed it.

Hardcore pro-lifers would argue that's no different than refusing to feed a child, thereby killing it via neglect.

It's still a form of contraception which is still denounced by the Church. Killing a child by neglect is obviously murder as well.

I'm pretty sure that if the egg and the sperm have never even come into contact with each other, nobody in their right mind would be foolish enough to argue that anything was killed.

[Khamsin]

This isn't quite the same, but whenever someone develops land, the Department of Ecology ensures that no wetland habitats are destroyed (although you can mitigate by creating another wetland elsewhere, among other alternatives). That much is probably obvious to anyone who thinks about it. There's some marsh with reeds and herons and ducks and such, and the DOE won't let you pave over it.

However, this also applies to wetlands that are accidentally created. If you've got some bad drainage in your back yard, and a portion of it is filling with water and you start seeing cattails and reeds growing, and a duck or two has made a home there, you can't get rid of it after that. You had a chance to drain it and clean it up before those plants started growing, but if you let it go too far, you now have some red tape to work around if you ever want to put a shed back there. Even though its your property.

The exact point at which it becomes a protected wetland, instead of a poorly maintained hole in the ground, is a bit vague. But in some cases, just the signs of marsh plants (reeds, cattails, etc.) growing is enough. You don't even need the duck. You have to preserve it because its the kind of place a duck might like to live. But anyone is more than welcome to keep their land weeded, dry, and landscaped so it doesn't end up that way. Then you can tear it up and do whatever you want with it later.

I'm not sure exactly how this ties in to the topic at hand, but it felt like there was some sort of parallel when I was writing it.

[Keno]

My entire contribution to this thread:

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6659/lolld7.jpg

[archibaldcrane]

When I first brought it up I clarified that it prevents implantation and doesn't kill a fertilized fetus but I guess everyone missed it.

Some argue that it may or may not prevent implantation, but by design it prevents the release of an egg. No egg = no fertilization to implant. It's still a form of birth control, of course, but it isn't designed to end a human life - it's designed to prevent fertilization in the first place.