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

[PredFan]

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.

These tests are not routinely done. There needs to be a reasonable suspicion of drug use or abuse.

 

[Ravi]

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.

You are incorrect:

You can help minimize your baby's chances of developing complications by carefully managing your gestational diabetes. The condition can cause a newborn to grow very big in utero (over 9 pounds), which may result in a traumatic delivery in which your baby could be injured. Having a very large baby also dramatically increases your chances of needing a cesarean section. Other potential problems for the baby include hypoglycemia (very low blood sugar), jaundice, electrolyte abnormalities, seizures, and breathing problems due to immature lungs (called respiratory distress syndrome). Furthermore, a new study published by the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine found that children born to mothers who had gestational diabetes are twice as likely to meet the criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) by age 6 as those whose mothers did not develop the condition. They may also be at risk for developing Type 2 diabetes later in life.

How does gestational diabetes affect a developing baby? - Parents.com

 

[PredFan]

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.

Meh, hyperbolic fear-mongering.

 

[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.

These tests are not routinely done. There needs to be a reasonable suspicion of drug use or abuse.

In Florida, these tests are done on every newborn. It is the law.

 

[PredFan]

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.

You are incorrect:

You can help minimize your baby's chances of developing complications by carefully managing your gestational diabetes. The condition can cause a newborn to grow very big in utero (over 9 pounds), which may result in a traumatic delivery in which your baby could be injured. Having a very large baby also dramatically increases your chances of needing a cesarean section. Other potential problems for the baby include hypoglycemia (very low blood sugar), jaundice, electrolyte abnormalities, seizures, and breathing problems due to immature lungs (called respiratory distress syndrome). Furthermore, a new study published by the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine found that children born to mothers who had gestational diabetes are twice as likely to meet the criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) by age 6 as those whose mothers did not develop the condition. They may also be at risk for developing Type 2 diabetes later in life.

How does gestational diabetes affect a developing baby? - Parents.com

As your usual, you barely bother to read the posts you respond to. If you had read it you would have noticed that I said "if the mother can handle it", which means among other things, if she doesn't have gestational diabetes.

Please try to read, if you can't be bothered, then i'll just point and laugh at you.

 

[PredFan]

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.

These tests are not routinely done. There needs to be a reasonable suspicion of drug use or abuse.

In Florida, these tests are done on every newborn. It is the law.

Complete garbage. I am a medical professional, have been for 30 years. I am VERY familiar with pre-natal and anti-natal procedures. They are not routinely done.

 

[rosends]

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.

I guess the "unhealthy lifestyle" question goes to the recent ban on large sugary drinks in NYC. If that volume is deemed legally a hazard for a living person would that protection apply to a fetus who is exposed to the results of the parent's diet via the umbilicus. And if the parent's tendency towards obesity is a risk factor for gestational diabetes, then couldn't that aspect of diet put the child in danger?

 

[Ravi]

These tests are not routinely done. There needs to be a reasonable suspicion of drug use or abuse.

In Florida, these tests are done on every newborn. It is the law.

Complete garbage. I am a medical professional, have been for 30 years. I am VERY familiar with pre-natal and anti-natal procedures. They are not routinely done.

Okay, you're right about that. I researched some more. It isn't mandatory for every infant. It is mandatory if someone suspects alcohol or drug abuse.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

Is that what your seeking? A better understanding?

What is your belief on the subject?

I'm pro-life and if a woman knowingly brings harm to the child she carries then I would think of it as child abuse and prosecute accordingly.

 

[AmyNation]

Soraya Chemaly: Three Videos Everyone Should See Before Voting

A Pregnant Woman is Not a Meth Lab | RH Reality Check

Amendment 48: It's dangerous to women - The Denver Post

Mother is charged in stillbirth of a twin | Deseret News

 

[rosends]

These tests are not routinely done. There needs to be a reasonable suspicion of drug use or abuse.

In Florida, these tests are done on every newborn. It is the law.

Complete garbage. I am a medical professional, have been for 30 years. I am VERY familiar with pre-natal and anti-natal procedures. They are not routinely done.

I heard something about pregnancy causing a woman to be insulin resistant thus making diet a major concern for the welfare of the mother and the fetus. Could (hypothetically) a woman's choice to ignore a doctor's directive about diet be considered a form of abuse?

 

[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.

Is that what your seeking? A better understanding?

What is your belief on the subject?

I'm pro-life and if a woman knowingly brings harm to the child she carries then I would think of it as child abuse and prosecute accordingly.

all I want is insight. I am trying to establish a full ethical platform and considering all of its implications. But this is a thought exercise, not an attempt to either create or persuade towards a political position. My position is unimportant. I am a blank slate simply asking questions about the logical application of ideas and their extensions.

 

[rosends]

Soraya Chemaly: Three Videos Everyone Should See Before Voting

A Pregnant Woman is Not a Meth Lab | RH Reality Check

Amendment 48: It's dangerous to women - The Denver Post

Mother is charged in stillbirth of a twin | Deseret News

those are some very useful articles! Thanks!

 

[PredFan]

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.

I guess the "unhealthy lifestyle" question goes to the recent ban on large sugary drinks in NYC. If that volume is deemed legally a hazard for a living person would that protection apply to a fetus who is exposed to the results of the parent's diet via the umbilicus. And if the parent's tendency towards obesity is a risk factor for gestational diabetes, then couldn't that aspect of diet put the child in danger?

Well, the NYC ban is utter bull shit. Sugar itself is not a danger to a person's health. It can lead to obesity which is a danger. if you believe mayor Bloomburg, then ask him if he thinks that preganant women should be arrested for excessive sugar use. The rest of us think he's a big government shit head.

 

[PredFan]

In Florida, these tests are done on every newborn. It is the law.

Complete garbage. I am a medical professional, have been for 30 years. I am VERY familiar with pre-natal and anti-natal procedures. They are not routinely done.

Okay, you're right about that. I researched some more. It isn't mandatory for every infant. It is mandatory if someone suspects alcohol or drug abuse.

Correct.

 

[PredFan]

In Florida, these tests are done on every newborn. It is the law.

Complete garbage. I am a medical professional, have been for 30 years. I am VERY familiar with pre-natal and anti-natal procedures. They are not routinely done.

I heard something about pregnancy causing a woman to be insulin resistant thus making diet a major concern for the welfare of the mother and the fetus. Could (hypothetically) a woman's choice to ignore a doctor's directive about diet be considered a form of abuse?

If a woman is insulin resistant, and you must have read this on the internet btw, then she will have problems with bread, oranges, melons, onions, tomatoes, carrots, corn, potatoes, apples, oatmeal, pears, grapes, and yes sugar.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Is that what your seeking? A better understanding?

What is your belief on the subject?

I'm pro-life and if a woman knowingly brings harm to the child she carries then I would think of it as child abuse and prosecute accordingly.

all I want is insight. I am trying to establish a full ethical platform and considering all of its implications. But this is a thought exercise, not an attempt to either create or persuade towards a political position. My position is unimportant. I am a blank slate simply asking questions about the logical application of ideas and their extensions.

I'm beginning to think that you aren't really. You are pretty obviously trying to paint pro-lifers into a corner under the guise of an "honest question".

 

[earlycuyler]

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.

-
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:

At least be honest. This whole bit here is bull shit.

-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?-

In some states, if a woman is drinking, smoking, or using drugs the state or CPS will intervene. But lets be realistic here, A bowl of pickles and ice cream, a Marlboro, amd a milkshake to finish it off will do less harm then this set up right here-

Those are 100% fetal for a fetus.

-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?-

This part of your post is redundant, as such useless. You are asking the same question twice in the same post. Anyway, this is the case in some states. I keep my opinion on abortion to myself due to the fact I dont have a vagina, but I will say that any woman thinking about an abortion should be made by law to understand the procedure, what it involves, and how its done.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is a big difference between engaging in an activity that may potentially damage a fetus and abortion that will absolutely kill it.

After all, up to quite recently women routinely smoked during pregnancy without harm to the fetus.

 

[earlycuyler]

There is a big difference between engaging in an activity that may potentially damage a fetus and abortion that will absolutely kill it.

After all, up to quite recently women routinely smoked during pregnancy without harm to the fetus.

And drank, and worked around hazardous chemicals. It was a goofy question. Im surprised the poster did not get ripped harder. Really must really be a kinder, gentler USMB.