What is the pro-life position on a pregnant woman doing harm to herself in a free society?

[100DollarBarrelofOil]

I know abortion is a controversial issue; I do not mean for this thread to devolve into a debate over the ethics of abortion.

Until very recently, I would have considered myself staunchly pro-choice, seeing no ethical issue related to abortion. Recent events have made me reconsider this stance, now I would consider myself pro-life in that I would not be comfortable with aborting my child. However, I am still skeptical about making abortion illegal because of some logistical issues I have related to enforcement.

For instance, if a pregnant woman attempts suicide, but fails, can the state charge her with attempted murder? What if she throws herself down a set of stairs in an attempt to abort the child? If she simply trips by accident and the baby is aborted, is this grounds for a manslaighter charge? Is smoking, doing drugs, or drinking alcohol grounds for child endangerment?

Thanks in advance in helping me understand the logistics of enforcing pro-life laws.

[Standing Like A Rock]

I know abortion is a controversial issue; I do not mean for this thread to devolve into a debate over the ethics of abortion.

Until very recently, I would have considered myself staunchly pro-choice, seeing no ethical issue related to abortion. Recent events have made me reconsider this stance, now I would consider myself pro-life in that I would not be comfortable with aborting my child. However, I am still skeptical about making abortion illegal because of some logistical issues I have related to enforcement.

For instance, if a pregnant woman attempts suicide, but fails, can the state charge her with attempted murder? What if she throws herself down a set of stairs in an attempt to abort the child? If she simply trips by accident and the baby is aborted, is this grounds for a manslaighter charge? Is smoking, doing drugs, or drinking alcohol grounds for child endangerment?

Thanks in advance in helping me understand the logistics of enforcing pro-life laws.

Some good questions.

I think they can all be answered by that there has to be willful intent to commit a crime for it to actually be a crime. So accidentally tripping would not be illegal, while intentionally falling down the stairs would be (although would be very difficult to prove in court). I am not sure about the drugs. Maybe someone else could answer that.

[noneedtoaggress]

Check out Walter Block on Evictionism.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=31350

[dannno]

Good question, and that is a part of the reason I'm pro-choice. I don't want all pregnant women to be scrutinized by the government. Women will inevitably have abortions in places where it is illegal, and people will find out and many will demand that the government 'enforce the laws' which necessitates invading the privacy of pregnant women. Pregnant women deserve the privacy that would allow them to have an abortion or a failed pregnancy without a huge investigation into the matter. The reason we can enforce murder laws without prying into people's lives is because when a person who has been born disappears, family, friends, coworkers or peers notice their disappearance. Then there becomes a premise for the investigation. With abortion and miscarriages there is rarely a premise because the woman doesn't have to tell anybody she is pregnant so it is very possible nobody will know when the unborn child disappears. This would create a strong incentive for government to try and build the premise of existence early which does not give a woman the proper privacy she deserves.

The bottom line is that many women who do have abortions end up feeling very guilty, and there is a reason for this. Humans, and to an even greater extent mothers, have natural hormones that cause the body to want their child or unborn child to be protected and safe. It takes a great amount of stress, life changing inconvenience (that could negatively affect future children they were planning on having after educating themselves, or finding a responsible man who can take care of them and their child) and often hopelessness in order for a woman to consider going through with killing their unborn child.

One option, is if the mother feels that strongly about going through with this because they think their entire life and their child's life will be very bad, and that if only they could have another chance to prop up their life before deciding to have children that they will provide those children with a much more superior life, and it is early enough in the pregnancy, then I'm personally willing to let that person go through with it if that is what they wish to do.

The other option is that this woman doesn't have a very strong desire to see her child live and probably won't make a very good parent for their child. I recently spoke to someone who was very frustrated because a girl in their family who they help support financially has a child from an unplanned pregnancy and puts the child second in their lives and they feel that this is extremely neglectful and detrimental to the child. If a woman who doesn't feel that motherly connection wants to have an abortion and it is early enough in the pregnancy, I don't have a huge problem with them making that decision.

There may be some cases where the mother would have had the child and the child might end up being really happy they were born. In most cases, especially in today's world, they will probably end up in prison or learning to leach of the system like their parents. This is a less than healthy existence, an existence that could potentially be replaced by a much healthier one, so believes the mother, and I'll leave that up to them. It's an unfortunately choice to have to make, I wish that nobody had to make it, but if the mother really wants to terminate her pregnancy and it is early then it is a balance that I think is worth considering, all issues considered.

[ChaosControl]

You can have a general policy of it being illegal, not allowing services to provide abortion and such. I'm not sure how much you can enforce some things without dipping into privacy invasive and authoritarian grounds. It is a delicate line protecting the child from an abusive parent.

I think it is a good conversation to have as I am not sure how all the details could be handled, although I think the first priority is just getting people to appreciate the value of life and realize that during pregnancy that one's body is not solely one's own.

[dannno]

I am not sure about the drugs. Maybe someone else could answer that.


Yes, pregnant mothers should be required to use drugs otherwise it may be detrimental to their child's development.



DREHER'S JAMAICAN PREGNANCY STUDY

More Suppression of Marijuana Research

In the 1980s Melanie Dreher and colleagues at UMass Amherst began a longitudinal study to assess the well-being of infants and children whose mothers used cannabis during pregnancy. The researchers lived in rural Jamaican communities among the women they were studying. Thirty cannabis-using pregnant women were matched for age and socio-economic status with 30 non-users. Dreher et al compared the course of their pregnancies and their neo-natal outcomes, using various standard scales.

No differences were detected three days after birth. At 30 days the exposed babies did better than the non-exposed on all the scales and significantly better on two of the scales (having to do with autonomic stability and reflexes).

Follow-up studies were conducted when the kids were four and five (just before entering school and after). The moms were defined as light users (1-10 spliffs per week), moderate (11-20), and heavy (21-70). Consumption of ganja tea was also taken into account.

The children were measured at age four using three sets of criteria: the McCarthy scale, which measures verbal ability, perceptivity, quantitative skills, memory and motor; a "behavioral style" scale measuring temperament, based on a 72-item questionnaire filled out by the child's primary caregiver; and a "quality of housing" index to indicate socioeconomic status.

"No Differences at All."

When they controlled for the household ratings, Dreher recounted April 8 at the Patients Out of Time Conference in Santa Barbara, her team "found absolutely no differences" between the children whose mothers were non-users and the children from the three groups of users. "No differences at all."


Ok, maybe they shouldn't use just any drug and maybe more research should be done on pre-natal cannabis exposure before recommending it.. but again, what about the privacy issue? What is the difference between this policy and the current war on drugs? What if a mother doesn't go to a traditional doctor, or doesn't go to a doctor who gives blood tests for drugs? Should pregnant women be required to take drug tests? Or is a family member supposed to report them? What if they're just using marijuana which the above study proved to be safe, or having a half of a glass of wine? What if they are taking anti-depressant prescription medication that turns out is more harmful than maybe even moderate use of some harder drugs?

[low preference guy]

What is the pro-life position on a pregnant woman doing harm to herself in a free society?

Follow up question: What's the pro-life position on women who smoke while pregnant?

[dannno]

Follow up question: What's the pro-life position on women who smoke while pregnant?

OP addressed that question.

I say if you're pregnant and it's 2 in the afternoon and you ain't high, go fuck yourself.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lk84ybQuvc1qffxev.jpg

[Theocrat]

The primary point to resolve is what is the fetus inside of the woman. If the fetus is just a blob of blood and tissue, then when she fails an attempt in suicide or trips down the stairs on purpose, she's not harming anyone but herself.

However, if the fetus is a human being with legal rights (as Ron Paul argues), then failed attempts at suicide as well as purposely falling down steps is attempt at murdering, not one person, but two people.

So I think the issue goes back to what do we consider the fetus to be. Once we answer that question, then the legal considerations of civil sanctions in such things as failed suicide attempts and tripping oneself to kill the fetus take care of themselves.

[reillym]

The radical religious people will NEVER say that an accidental pregnancy should result in a manslaughter charge/murder/etc, proving that they DON'T care about the child, but about religion and some rants in an old book and about controlling women (one way to push religion further).

[ClayTrainor]

The radical religious people will NEVER say that an accidental pregnancy should result in a manslaughter charge/murder/etc,

edit: nm i think i get what you're trying to say now.

[specsaregood]

The radical religious people will NEVER say that an accidental pregnancy should result in a manslaughter charge/murder/etc,

you mean because it should result in a birth? what the hell kind of loony thinks a pregnancy of any type "should result in a manslaughter charge/murder/etc"?

[Jandrsn21]

The two things I can't stand about government funding for abortions is first, it is taxed from someone who despises abortions, and second, the government subsidizes bad behavior. You go around having sex, knowing if you don't take precautions, YOU WILL GET PREGNANT, I mean it is not that hard to understand. Do the crime, be willing to do the time, the government doesn't allow people to take responsibility for themselves, they say hey go out, sleep with whomever, don't use any protection, and hey something happens, well we got you covered! Whatever happened to consequences and being able to learn from your mistakes.

[100DollarBarrelofOil]

Edit: Appologies if anything in my posts have implied that I am in favor of state funding for abortion; I think most people in this thread can agree that that is a terrible idea.

Block's arguement is very interesting. Similar in ways to the notion that I can dislike Qadaffi's treatment of his people but not like our invasion of Libya because it is not our right to intervene. I like it.


It is a delicate line protecting the child from an abusive parent.

This leads me to a follow up question. If the state is able to regulate the individual by saying that one cannot do with one's own body what one wishes (even if that might lead to harm/death of a child one might be carrying), what stops the state from regulating one's body or behavior if one is the guardian of a minor? Is being an alcoholic child endangerment? What about allowing your child to watch too much television?


during pregnancy that one's body is not solely one's own.

This sentiment terrifies me. If pregnancy allows the state to intervene and say that one's body is not one's own, then what stops the state from saying that one's body is not one's own in other areas, or from stating that one's body is not one's property at all?

[ChaosControl]

This leads me to a follow up question. If the state is able to regulate the individual by saying that one cannot do with one's own body what one wishes (even if that might lead to harm/death of a child one might be carrying), what stops the state from regulating one's body or behavior if one is the guardian of a minor? Is being an alcoholic child endangerment? What about allowing your child to watch too much television?

This sentiment terrifies me. If pregnancy allows the state to intervene and say that one's body is not one's own, then what stops the state from saying that one's body is not one's own in other areas, or from stating that one's body is not one's property at all?

It isn't about the state intervening, it is about changing people's minds. The state is worthless, it shouldn't even exist. It isn't that their body isn't their own, it is that it isn't solely their own to do anything with as they please as actions they do can harm another living being. Is that fair? Not really. But life should be valued. But again, this is about getting people to accept this as a societal view, not about some oligarchy in DC writing up some codes and sending police down our doors to make sure any woman who is pregnant is living a perfectly healthful lifestyle.

[LibForestPaul]

Dannno's post pretty well formed.
I would like to add the following:
Weighing the property rights of the adult women against the property rights of the unborn child is extremely difficult. That is why their are so many emotions wrapped up in this issue. Who here would stand idle by while 2 year olds were suddenly drowned by their parents? When does the natural rights of a human being come into existence. Difficult question. The survival rate of preemies at 24 week gestation is roughly 50%, 6 months, 3 months early. But does a zygote have natural rights? Do those natural rights trump the adult womens rights? If you believe that soul(humane essence) is created instantly... now what?

[amy31416]

Dannno's post pretty well formed.
I would like to add the following:
Weighing the property rights of the adult women against the property rights of the unborn child is extremely difficult. That is why their are so many emotions wrapped up in this issue. Who here would stand idle by while 2 year olds were suddenly drowned by their parents? When does the natural rights of a human being come into existence. Difficult question. The survival rate of preemies at 24 week gestation is roughly 50%, 6 months, 3 months early. But does a zygote have natural rights? Do those natural rights trump the adult womens rights? If you believe that soul(humane essence) is created instantly... now what?

There is also the scientific notion that a unique combination of DNA has been created that has never been created before, and will never be created again.

[erowe1]

I know abortion is a controversial issue; I do not mean for this thread to devolve into a debate over the ethics of abortion.

Until very recently, I would have considered myself staunchly pro-choice, seeing no ethical issue related to abortion. Recent events have made me reconsider this stance, now I would consider myself pro-life in that I would not be comfortable with aborting my child. However, I am still skeptical about making abortion illegal because of some logistical issues I have related to enforcement.

For instance, if a pregnant woman attempts suicide, but fails, can the state charge her with attempted murder? What if she throws herself down a set of stairs in an attempt to abort the child? If she simply trips by accident and the baby is aborted, is this grounds for a manslaighter charge? Is smoking, doing drugs, or drinking alcohol grounds for child endangerment?

Thanks in advance in helping me understand the logistics of enforcing pro-life laws.

Yes, all those examples are unequivocally crimes with a real victim. The same goes for parents who make self-harming decisions that cause them to neglect their children after they're born. Parents have an obligation to care for their kids.

[Brett85]

I know abortion is a controversial issue; I do not mean for this thread to devolve into a debate over the ethics of abortion.

Until very recently, I would have considered myself staunchly pro-choice, seeing no ethical issue related to abortion. Recent events have made me reconsider this stance, now I would consider myself pro-life in that I would not be comfortable with aborting my child. However, I am still skeptical about making abortion illegal because of some logistical issues I have related to enforcement.

For instance, if a pregnant woman attempts suicide, but fails, can the state charge her with attempted murder? What if she throws herself down a set of stairs in an attempt to abort the child? If she simply trips by accident and the baby is aborted, is this grounds for a manslaighter charge? Is smoking, doing drugs, or drinking alcohol grounds for child endangerment?

Thanks in advance in helping me understand the logistics of enforcing pro-life laws.

Obviously, the government can't enforce everything. But the situations that you describe are simply one and a million situations that pro choicers always like to bring up. Most pro lifers simply want to close down PUBLIC abortion clinics and prosecute abortion doctors. That would solve about 90% of the problem.

[100DollarBarrelofOil]

The same goes for parents who make self-harming decisions that cause them to neglect their children after they're born. Parents have an obligation to care for their kids.

I think this is a logical extension of the pro life decision.

The issue, however, is what constitutes harm? Strangling a child is obviously harming them. But, is, say, spanking them? Telling them about ugly facets of life? Yelling at them for doing something wrong? Sheltering them so that they are ignorant of things that they might otherwise be conscious of at a given age? Alowing them to take drugs? Taking drugs yourself? Having them grow up in your household when you barely have the means to support them financially? All these could theoretically be argued to "harm" a child.

The issue I have with this is that "harming another" is difficult to define, and the fact that this grey area exists allows the state a great deal of power to regulate personal behavior.

Fake Edit: And really, a pregnant woman who accidentaly trips gets a manslaughter charge?

[erowe1]

I think this is a logical extension of the pro life decision.

The issue, however, is what constitutes harm? Strangling a child is obviously harming them. But, is, say, spanking them? Telling them about ugly facets of life? Yelling at them for doing something wrong? Sheltering them so that they are ignorant of things that they might otherwise be conscious of at a given age? Alowing them to take drugs? Taking drugs yourself? Having them grow up in your household when you barely have the means to support them financially? All these could theoretically be argued to "harm" a child.

The issue I have with this is that "harming another" is difficult to define, and the fact that this grey area exists allows the state a great deal of power to regulate personal behavior.

Fake Edit: And really, a pregnant woman who accidentaly trips gets a manslaughter charge?

I wouldn't count any of those things you listed as crimes. But the neglect of the child that could go with some of them could be.

For accidentally tripping, no, that wouldn't be manslaughter. I missed that part in your OP. Manslaughter isn't when a person dies from just any accident, it's when someone dies because of someone willfully doing something dangerous that led to the accident. If I'm drunk and I drive and get in an accident that kills the passenger in my car, that would be manslaughter, regardless of if that passenger was in my womb or not.

[Pericles]

Dannno's post pretty well formed.
I would like to add the following:
Weighing the property rights of the adult women against the property rights of the unborn child is extremely difficult. That is why their are so many emotions wrapped up in this issue. Who here would stand idle by while 2 year olds were suddenly drowned by their parents? When does the natural rights of a human being come into existence. Difficult question. The survival rate of preemies at 24 week gestation is roughly 50%, 6 months, 3 months early. But does a zygote have natural rights? Do those natural rights trump the adult womens rights? If you believe that soul(humane essence) is created instantly... now what?

Culturally, and legally, a person exists and therefore has rights when born. This can make ceseareans somewhat problematic or late term abortions where life is sustainable problemmatic, but is probably the best rule, as I think society should not intervene.

Anytime I think there should be a law, I should be willing to enforce said law myself, by force of arms. I can't see myself shooting a pregnant woman in order to force her to have a baby.

[Agorism]

So does smoking\drinking mean ur trying to harm the fetus. Clearly they do especially the latter.

[dannno]

So does smoking\drinking mean ur trying to harm the fetus. Clearly they do especially the latter.

I've heard the former (cigarettes) does more damage, though I could be wrong (although cannabis seems to help according to the study I posted).