Search results

How wouldn't it? I don't know if you drive, but if I'm driving and I hit someone, in whatever circumstance, I hit and (presumably) killed them, and thus it is my fault. Situationally it depends, obviously, but most of the time it's the driver's fault because they were driving. No ifs, ands or buts.

Many children are killed each year when they run in front of a car that didn't see them (i.e. from between parked cars, and they're shortarse toddlers), or when they are directly behind a reversing 4WD which also can't see them... In each of these cases, good luck being the driver and getting...

Actually, it's more to do with education. On average as the level of literacy in a nation increases, so does its birthrate decrease. This itself is correlated with an increase in wealth, however, so it's impossible to define a direct cause. EDIT: What static said. EDIT 2: And of course lack...

Eh, true. However, it's on the right track - and TT is wrong (well, not right) when he says that "Something cannot come from nothing. This is infant level common sense and scientific fact." because there is nothing that strictly forbids it (yes, I know the amount of matter/energy in the universe...

/Thread.

I have arguments with myself all the time. I hate government regulation as a principle, but government regulation is what prevents things like the tragedy of the commons. *sigh*

I'm a capitalist, and an environmentalist, so I have to admit I'm at a bit of an impasse, here.

I was more talking about poorer areas, in which the birth rate tends to be higher. :)

It would be, however, in our "best interest" to stop reproducing (as a species), at least to the extent that we are now.

Probably not. It depends on your definition of poverty, I suppose. If everyone in the world had our level of wealth in Australia, the world would have run out of resources long ago.

How? Either negligently killing a foetus is killing a foetus and is prosecuted as such (as for babies, children and adults) or it isn't.

Even if those drugs are alcohol and/or caffeine, neither of which are themselves illegal? And what if the woman is ignorant of the effect of these drugs on a foetus? Is that still manslaughter?

Why? The foetus was still killed, through negligent behaviour. If you're arguing that a foetus is entitled to all the rights of being a fully-fledged human being, then you can't really pick and choose which legal definitions apply, can you?

What about women who, through things like drug use or dangerous behaviour, miscarry? Is that also murder, even if they didn't know they were pregnant, in which case they'd be guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide?

And people have gone to jail for less. The point is that if you must ascribe the label "murder" to abortion, then all other legal definitions must follow including this, which is obviously absurd for the reasons you have stated.

By your definition it is "preventing life" and is thus manslaughter.

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle (etc)

Lol. You do realise that blastocysts are made up mostly of embryonic stem cells? Which can become anything, any tissue, given the correct instructions? They just happen to be "given" the instructions to "form tissue that will eventually form a human foetus. Biology doesn't have "intentions".

Read what I said again. Fertilised eggs. Fertilised eggs. Eggs that have been fertilised. Sperm and egg joined together. Human women routinely and spontaneously abort fertilised eggs.

Bbq Ftw.