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

[rosends]

Okay, Rosends, ask your class this:

What if a woman is old, has cancer, or is VERY likely to produce a baby with health issues, yet they insist on becoming pregnant and carrying the child to term?

our discussion yesterday ended up calling forth a House episode in which a woman with cancer was pregnant and had to get chemo which would kill the child or die, herself. In your case, the woman knows beforehand that she will be putting the child in danger (slippery slope extension -- since the likelihood of birth defects increases after women reach a certain age). This is similar to a choice made by parents who both are carriers of the Tay Sachs gene. They are gambling that a child will not die. If they gamble wrong they consign the child to suffering and death. Would this be actionable?

 

[ding]

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.

These don't seem like serious questions to me.

 

[rosends]

These don't seem like serious questions to me.

of course they don't...

 

[ding]

of course they don't...

Because they aren't.

 

[Clyde 154]

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.

This is typical of someone attempting to equate the premeditated murder of their unborn child, by presenting hypothetical COULD HAVES..........you are comparing murder to those who might have a serious problem of addiction and or chemical dependence? Really? I thought the progressive idea that ADDICTION was a disease and should invoke empathy, not compare the condition to premeditated murder (cognitive thought...as if the addict is deliberately attempting to kill their unborn child).

If someone wanted to kill their unborn........there are great many ways to accomplish such without invoking a slow death or deformity through chemical poison. Reality: Abortion on demand kills far more unborn children than fetal poison every year.

Personally speaking? I have nothing against the type of people that would abort/murder their unborn child with premeditation.......eventually they will remove themselves from the gene pool. I compare this with God allowing the removal/death of everyone (men, women, children..even their animals) from the gene pool that practiced child sacrifice, (Amalekites) and abusing children through sexual deviant practices.............its better for a child to go directly to heaven than allow them to grow up being indoctrinated to evil and become an adult and go to hell. (1 Sam. 15:3)

 

[rosends]

This is typical of someone attempting to equate the premeditated murder of their unborn child, by presenting hypothetical COULD HAVES..........you are comparing murder to those who might have a serious problem of addiction and or chemical dependence? Really? I thought the progressive idea that ADDICTION was a disease and should invoke empathy, not compare the condition to premeditated murder (cognitive thought...as if the addict is deliberately attempting to kill their unborn child).

If someone wanted to kill their unborn........there are great many ways to accomplish such without invoking a slow death or deformity through chemical poison. Reality: Abortion on demand kills far more unborn children than fetal poison every year.

Personally speaking? I have nothing against the type of people that would abort/murder their unborn child with premeditation.......eventually they will remove themselves from the gene pool. I compare this with God allowing the removal/death of everyone (men, women, children..even their animals) from the gene pool that practiced child sacrifice, (Amalekites) and abusing children through sexual deviant practices.............its better for a child to go directly to heaven than allow them to grow up being indoctrinated to evil and become an adult and go to hell. (1 Sam. 15:3)

thanks for not answering.

 

[Clyde 154]

thanks for not answering.

Welcome, I suppose that's why you did not reply to the non-answer? Oh.........you did reply. There's a monkey in the woodpile somewhere. Logic/Reason......Water/Oil. This is much like Girl Math. A female purchases something that's on sale 30%..........she declares she just made a 30% profit instead of wasting the 70% on a product that was never really needed in the first place. Now you know how Camel Harris wasted 1.5 billion dollars with everyone declaring she ran a perfect campaign.........that somehow lost. It was not her fault........almost 80 million people are just to stupid to realize perfection when they see it.

 

[Z99]

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 believe that GOD wants people, pregnant or otherwise, to take care of their bodies, which entails a healthy diet and lifestyle. Yes, people in and out of the womb should be protected. I would support government placing pregnant, smoking, women into centers in order to better ensure that the woman sticks to a healthy lifestyle until the birth of her child.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

admittedly, I am taking it to an extreme but excessive weight gain during pregnancy is a risk factor for gestational diabetes which puts a child at risk. And if we can say that too much junk/unhealthy food is not good for a "person", and were she feeding this to her older children, she would be held accountable for malnourishment, would the same be true here?

You can't make stupidity against the law or 90% of the population would be behind bars, with 10% guarding them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So its okay to drink while pregnant and have the baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome? Its okay to smoke and have a child that is underweight at birth?

She isn't killing her baby, but she is making it very, very ill.

Why do you assume the worst? My mother smoked when she had all 5 of her children. My brother and I turned out OK the other 3 died in infancy due to an unknown allergy to milk of all things. My wife drank occasionally while pregnant with our 3 kids and they all turned OK. Neither abused it.

I have 3 grandkids that all suffer or did suffer from health and development issues, and neither of the mothers drank, smoked, or did drugs.

You need to put away that broad brush of assumptions.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I believe that GOD wants people, pregnant or otherwise, to take care of their bodies, which entails a healthy diet and lifestyle. Yes, people in and out of the womb should be protected. I would support government placing pregnant, smoking, women into centers in order to better ensure that the woman sticks to a healthy lifestyle until the birth of her child.

Are you a devote Communist or do you just play one on message boards? You would be more at home in China.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

no, this is not my homework. I'm the teacher. I'm continuing the thoughts developed with my class (a group of high school seniors in a class called "Literature, Politics and Society", after a discussion of Brave New World by Huxley). I can see that you believe in the right to life of the fetus but you can't help me understand the ethical implications. Thank you for your time.

Seniors? I read that book in the 6th grade!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

No, we haven't. You are no teacher if that is the kind of crap you are putting out.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

You are basically proposing government intervention and control in a life process where it has no business except in a socialist/communist authoritarian government. That crap will go over like a lead balloon, and it will never fly.

 

[Concerned American]

admittedly, I am taking it to an extreme but excessive weight gain during pregnancy is a risk factor for gestational diabetes which puts a child at risk. And if we can say that too much junk/unhealthy food is not good for a "person", and were she feeding this to her older children, she would be held accountable for malnourishment, would the same be true here?

I fail to see where living an unhealthy lifestyle really relates to the wanton murder of a living human. Sadly, our legal system doesn't allow for convictions of stupidity in the care of ones body or that of the body that they are hosting until too late.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

the question was very clearly thought out. if you feel fixated on the extreme argument regarding gestational diabetes then skip it. i am asking about an ethical position and its implications. if you cannot work with me and provide a thoughtful answer then just move to the next post.

You're getting thoughtful answers. Your little "trap" isn't thoughtful however.

"Is a woman eating a candy bar a criminal act because it's gonna kill her baby?"

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I believe that GOD wants people, pregnant or otherwise, to take care of their bodies, which entails a healthy diet and lifestyle. Yes, people in and out of the womb should be protected. I would support government placing pregnant, smoking, women into centers in order to better ensure that the woman sticks to a healthy lifestyle until the birth of her child.

Sarcasm, right?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

So its okay to drink while pregnant and have the baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome? Its okay to smoke and have a child that is underweight at birth?

She isn't killing her baby, but she is making it very, very ill.

So you agree it's a BABY

 

[ding]

Sarcasm, right?

I don't think so.

 

[ding]

So its okay to drink while pregnant and have the baby born with fetal alcohol syndrome? Its okay to smoke and have a child that is underweight at birth?

She isn't killing her baby, but she is making it very, very ill.

If it's a concern of yours you should be contacting your legislators, right? Not making it an argument for why abortion should be legal. It's a pretty dumb argument.