I have a question for a person who is Pro-Life

[Noomi]

As I said, make the child very ill, who cares about that, just don't kill it.

Nice to know that pro lifers care about children.

 

[Moonglow]

Sure you people caim to value life, but give them govt. help to make babies healthy and the parents you cry bloody murder over your pocket book being stolen from.

 

[Unkotare]

no, this is not my homework. I'm the teacher.

You may work in a school, but we have established that you are no teacher.

 

[PixieStix]

I know you think that you thought this out before posting it. But please think a little longer.

We as human beings should not be in the business of advocating murder in or out of the womb.

Abortion is unfortunately legal. So your argument to make getting fat and eating too much sugar illegal, is just dumb

If your weight gain and sugar consumption may cause harm to the fetus, then it should be illegal, because it would be child endangerment/abuse. If you don't think so, then you must not believe a fetus is a person, as is the view of most pro lifers.

Fascist

 

[PixieStix]

Communism and fascism or nazism, although poles apart in their intellectual content, are similar in this, that both have emotional appeal to the type of personality that takes pleasure in being submerged in a mass movement and submitting to superior authority. ~James A.C. Brown~

 

[rosends]

I have a serious question for someone who is of the belief that abortion is wrong because actual life begins at conception.

I am not judging sides and my own personal view is unimportant. Also, my question is not meant to be facetious -- I really have worked through the moral implications mentioned here, so I ask anyone who is truly and sincerely pro-life to please give me a few seconds, consider what I am asking and help me understand your position in this regard:

As you feel that life begins at conception, and the fetus needs protections on the level of any other human being against harm and not just death, would you accept the notion that alcohol, excessive sugary foods and smoking should be criminalized for pregnant women as they lead to fetal damage? Can a woman who is pro-life be ethically consistent and yet smoke during pregnancy?

As an extension, should any behavior the woman exhibits be considered as if she was holding a 1 year old in her arms so that a charge of child endangerment could be sustained if the woman acts in a reckless way which might endanger the fetus?

These are serious questions which, to my mind are logical continuations of the idea that the fetus needs protections as a person.

Thanks in advance for thoughtful answers.

It's a trick question isn't it? What you are suggesting is an incredible government control over the lives of pregnant women. All pro-lifers are suggesting is to not kill the babies.

it's not a trick but that's an element of the question. Is the pro life position ethically responsible to a live fetus or to a healthy human being? Born humans are guaranteed protection not just against murder but also harm. Thus, if the fetus has the protections of a live person, does the fetus have the protection against harm?

 

[jtpr312]

I have a serious question for someone who is of the belief that abortion is wrong because actual life begins at conception.

I am not judging sides and my own personal view is unimportant. Also, my question is not meant to be facetious -- I really have worked through the moral implications mentioned here, so I ask anyone who is truly and sincerely pro-life to please give me a few seconds, consider what I am asking and help me understand your position in this regard:

As you feel that life begins at conception, and the fetus needs protections on the level of any other human being against harm and not just death, would you accept the notion that alcohol, excessive sugary foods and smoking should be criminalized for pregnant women as they lead to fetal damage? Can a woman who is pro-life be ethically consistent and yet smoke during pregnancy?

As an extension, should any behavior the woman exhibits be considered as if she was holding a 1 year old in her arms so that a charge of child endangerment could be sustained if the woman acts in a reckless way which might endanger the fetus?

These are serious questions which, to my mind are logical continuations of the idea that the fetus needs protections as a person.

Thanks in advance for thoughtful answers.

Sugary foods and smoking don't "lead to fetal damage" some studies have suggested smoking leads to fetal damage, but seeing how millions, upon, millions, upon millions of woman who smoke have had healthy kids there is no need to protect the baby from smoking mother's, though mother's should realize there may be some risk involved. As for excessive sugar, the facts state that diabetic mothers have a higher risk of children born with birth defects, but you can't ban woman with health problems from having kids. As for drug abuse and alcohol abuse during pregnancy, we KNOW both cause extreme problems for the young life and yes, woman who abuse drugs, legal or illegal drugs, or who abuse alcohol to the point where the child may get fetal alcohol syndrome, yeah, they should be locked up until after the child is born. As for my views on being pro-life, I am pro-life but of the persuasion that not ALL abortions should be banned that there are certain circumstances where an abortion should be left to the woman, her God and the child she will be killing, but those situations are a mere drop in the bucket. Less than 10% of all aortions.

 

[rosends]

no, this is not my homework. I'm the teacher.

You may work in a school, but we have established that you are no teacher.

is that the royal "we" or do you have dissociative identity disorder to complement your lack of intelligence?

"we" have not established anything, you have drawn an erroneous conclusion.

 

[rosends]

As for drug abuse and alcohol abuse during pregnancy, we KNOW both cause extreme problems for the young life and yes, woman who abuse drugs, legal or illegal drugs, or who abuse alcohol to the point where the child may get fetal alcohol syndrome, yeah, they should be locked up until after the child is born.

Thank you for your input -- a couple of follow up questions:

Second hand smoke is known to be a hazard (or at least the Surgeon General has decided it is) to living humans so there are laws protecting people from being exposed to it. Should there be laws to keep the fetus from being exposed?

Could legal action be taken against a woman who has a single drink (as there is no minimum threshold of acceptable drinking -- effects on the fetus have been demonstrated after a single drink -- ERNHART, C.B.; Sokol, R.J.; Martier, S.; Moron, P.; Nadler, D.; Ager, J.W.; & Wolf, A. Alcohol teratogenicity in the human: A detailed assessment of specificity, critical period, and threshold. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 156(1):33-39, 1987.)

Are ALL the protections of personhood applicable to a fetus once the title of "unborn child" is applied to the fetus?

 

[Ravi]

It's an interesting question. I would say that to be consistent, the pro-life (or as I fondly call them, the forced-birth) crowd would be for punishment for women that do anything that could be said to endanger the fetus.

There are state laws on the books already. In Floriduh, for example, a newborn is tested to determine if the mother has exposed the child to alcohol and/or controlled substances before birth. If the test is positive, child protective services step in. I do not know the punishment for the mother. I'd have to look it up.

 

[rosends]

It's an interesting question. I would say that to be consistent, the pro-life (or as I fondly call them, the forced-birth) crowd would be for punishment for women that do anything that could be said to endanger the fetus.

There are state laws on the books already. In Floriduh, for example, a newborn is tested to determine if the mother has exposed the child to alcohol and/or controlled substances before birth. If the test is positive, child protective services step in. I do not know the punishment for the mother. I'd have to look it up.

Interesting -- I am going to reserve comment until I mull this over more, but I appreciate the input and the information. Just wanted to let you know that I read this and you have given me food for thought. If you have any of that other legal info, please post it so I can bring it back to class to flesh it out.

 

[Ravi]

It's an interesting question. I would say that to be consistent, the pro-life (or as I fondly call them, the forced-birth) crowd would be for punishment for women that do anything that could be said to endanger the fetus.

There are state laws on the books already. In Floriduh, for example, a newborn is tested to determine if the mother has exposed the child to alcohol and/or controlled substances before birth. If the test is positive, child protective services step in. I do not know the punishment for the mother. I'd have to look it up.

Interesting -- I am going to reserve comment until I mull this over more, but I appreciate the input and the information. Just wanted to let you know that I read this and you have given me food for thought. If you have any of that other legal info, please post it so I can bring it back to class to flesh it out.

Here's a pretty good link:

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/drugexposed.pdf

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The question was posed to pro-lifers. So why are the pro-abortionist weighing in?

 

[AmyNation]

There are a few states that have as close to personhood laws as they can get. It has so far been used to steal a woman right to decide her own medical treatment. The doctor declares "best interest of the un-born" and they can take away her right to have a home birth, force her to have a c-section, confine her to the hospital, etc.

 

[PredFan]

I have a serious question for someone who is of the belief that abortion is wrong because actual life begins at conception.

I am pro-life personally, but pro-choice politically so I feel I can address this question.

As you feel that life begins at conception, and the fetus needs protections on the level of any other human being against harm and not just death, would you accept the notion that alcohol, excessive sugary foods and smoking should be criminalized for pregnant women as they lead to fetal damage? Can a woman who is pro-life be ethically consistent and yet smoke during pregnancy?

Alcohol is only harmful in excessive amounts, and sugary foods are not harmful to the infant. Now, smoking has been linked to small birth weight, and other complications but in truth, smoking is way more harmful to a child after it's born and can breath in the smoke. I'm against government regulation in this manner. You have a good pint about pro-life women and smoking. I wonder how many pro-life women smoke during pregnancy. I'll bet that there aren't a lot.

As an extension, should any behavior the woman exhibits be considered as if she was holding a 1 year old in her arms so that a charge of child endangerment could be sustained if the woman acts in a reckless way which might endanger the fetus?

I would have to know what exactly you mean. Unhealthy lifestyle? No. reckless endangerment, possibly yes. It isn't something that is black and white.

 

[rosends]

It's an interesting question. I would say that to be consistent, the pro-life (or as I fondly call them, the forced-birth) crowd would be for punishment for women that do anything that could be said to endanger the fetus.

There are state laws on the books already. In Floriduh, for example, a newborn is tested to determine if the mother has exposed the child to alcohol and/or controlled substances before birth. If the test is positive, child protective services step in. I do not know the punishment for the mother. I'd have to look it up.

Interesting -- I am going to reserve comment until I mull this over more, but I appreciate the input and the information. Just wanted to let you know that I read this and you have given me food for thought. If you have any of that other legal info, please post it so I can bring it back to class to flesh it out.

Here's a pretty good link:

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/drugexposed.pdf

fabulous! Thanks -- there is the opening paragraph which provides some interesting info.

 

[rosends]

The question was posed to pro-lifers. So why are the pro-abortionist weighing in?

that's a fair question, but I would hope that anyone who chimes in, from either side, can provide an answer rising above personal opinion and casting him or herself hypothetically in the role if it is not a native disposition. clearly, even on the anti-abortion side there are different shades of philosophy. So I'll take any well thought out answer which helps me create a better understanding.

 

[rosends]

There are a few states that have as close to personhood laws as they can get. It has so far been used to steal a woman right to decide her own medical treatment. The doctor declares "best interest of the un-born" and they can take away her right to have a home birth, force her to have a c-section, confine her to the hospital, etc.

thanks -- if you could link to any documentation, I would appreciate it so I can print and disseminate to my class.

 

[PredFan]

I know you think that you thought this out before posting it. But please think a little longer.

We as human beings should not be in the business of advocating murder in or out of the womb.

Abortion is unfortunately legal. So your argument to make getting fat and eating too much sugar illegal, is just dumb

If your weight gain and sugar consumption may cause harm to the fetus, then it should be illegal, because it would be child endangerment/abuse. If you don't think so, then you must not believe a fetus is a person, as is the view of most pro lifers.

Excessive weight gain is a problem for the mother and seldom for the infant. Excessive sugar consumption, if the mother can handle it, is harmless to the infant.

 

[PredFan]

I have a serious question for someone who is of the belief that abortion is wrong because actual life begins at conception.

I am not judging sides and my own personal view is unimportant. Also, my question is not meant to be facetious -- I really have worked through the moral implications mentioned here, so I ask anyone who is truly and sincerely pro-life to please give me a few seconds, consider what I am asking and help me understand your position in this regard:

As you feel that life begins at conception, and the fetus needs protections on the level of any other human being against harm and not just death, would you accept the notion that alcohol, excessive sugary foods and smoking should be criminalized for pregnant women as they lead to fetal damage? Can a woman who is pro-life be ethically consistent and yet smoke during pregnancy?

As an extension, should any behavior the woman exhibits be considered as if she was holding a 1 year old in her arms so that a charge of child endangerment could be sustained if the woman acts in a reckless way which might endanger the fetus?

These are serious questions which, to my mind are logical continuations of the idea that the fetus needs protections as a person.

Thanks in advance for thoughtful answers.

Sugary foods and smoking don't "lead to fetal damage" some studies have suggested smoking leads to fetal damage, but seeing how millions, upon, millions, upon millions of woman who smoke have had healthy kids there is no need to protect the baby from smoking mother's, though mother's should realize there may be some risk involved. As for excessive sugar, the facts state that diabetic mothers have a higher risk of children born with birth defects, but you can't ban woman with health problems from having kids. As for drug abuse and alcohol abuse during pregnancy, we KNOW both cause extreme problems for the young life and yes, woman who abuse drugs, legal or illegal drugs, or who abuse alcohol to the point where the child may get fetal alcohol syndrome, yeah, they should be locked up until after the child is born. As for my views on being pro-life, I am pro-life but of the persuasion that not ALL abortions should be banned that there are certain circumstances where an abortion should be left to the woman, her God and the child she will be killing, but those situations are a mere drop in the bucket. Less than 10% of all aortions.

You are correct. Excessive sugar consumption is only bad for mothers who are diabetic, and then it's far more frequently hard on the mother than the infant.