I was in a discussion with a colleague of mine this afternoon, and this question came up during our conversation: if life begins at conception, or two weeks prior to conception according to the new Arizona law, can I take out a million-dollar life insurance policy on the unborn and collect in the event of a miscarriage?
Hmm...IF the law stated that a fertilised egg/embryo/fetus was a person, logically I would see no reason as to why life insurance couldn't be taken out. Interesting question, Paco. You got me thinking.
Ugh. I hate my state so much. So according to this new law (btw I lost TONS of respect for Jan Brewer for signing this thing into law) women are considered pregnant two weeks before conception even starts. http://www.examiner.com/article/arizona-law-pregnancy-starts-2-weeks-before-conception It's a good thing California is only a 7 hour drive away! ...*puts more money into the move to Canada fund*
If you're willing to pay enough in premiums to make it worthwhile for the insurer to carry such a policy, that's between you and them. What the hell it has to do with abortion I have no idea.
In respect to the thread topic, generally, "life begins at conception" is the typical anti-abortion argument.
We're all aware of that by now, so thanks for nothing. The fact remains that there is no moral issue in your example. Whether you call it an unborn child, a fetus or a duck-billed platypus, you can ask an insurance carrier for such a policy, and the two of you either enter into a contract or not. Nobody else has any reason to care one way or the other.
I'm thinking that "person" would at least need to be officially recognised as a person by the state, which of course only happens after birth right now when this newborn individual receives a birth certificate and such. So, yeah, any law attempting to attribute personhood to a fetus is very irresponsible, to put it kindly.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but fetal human rights are already established into American law, which does indeed make my question a relevant one. This isn't a fantasy anymore. It's reality now, and legal precedent has already defined "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb". So now you can thank me for making you "aware of that by now". You certainly wouldn't be "thanking me for nothing", that's for sure.
You could have an abortion (which could be easily confused with a miscarriage) and collect that policy. It'd be a money making scheme for a lot of people.
No they are not. If they were, Roe v Wade would be a dead letter... ...but that still wouldn't make your hypothetical anything but a waste of time as far as abortion is concerned. Anyone who needs a law to tell him that is an idiot, hth. No, I can't - although you may consider yourself thanked in advance should you find the wisdom to abandon this abortion of a thread. Yes, I suppose at this point I should be thanking you for less than nothing, which is what your posts in this thread are worth. And they'd be guilty of insurance fraud as well as murder. So what?
