Posted on 12/04/2008 1:37:22 PM PST by NYer
You'd think.....
*shakes head in disbelief....*
Pro-abortion arguments just don't cut it on FR, you know....
Let me know when asking about unintended consequences is verboten.
True, but it adds, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This is the point people use when saying that we are not required to recognize the children of illegal immigrants (or other foreign nationals) as U.S. citizens, even if they're born on our soil.
Declaring unborn children to be citizens would be a stretch, but declaring them protected by law would not. Animals aren't citizens, but abuse or killing of animals can be punished by law.
So every time a woman bleeds it needs to be investigated as a possible homicide? You need to get a grip. It's nowhere near in the same category as crib death.
Just when you think you've heard it all from an evo....
Why not investigate the cause of miscarriages, with hormone-level checks, for example? It’s common for women who’ve miscarried to have a blood test, anyway, to see if they might still be carrying a twin, or if they were even pregnant (if that hadn’t been tested) or if the symptoms of pain and heavy bleeding had another cause.
If it’s a natural loss of pregnancy, then the blood-test information could be useful to that woman or others in avoiding further miscarriages. If there’s indication of induced abortion, then (in the hypothetical situation of any abortions being illegal), that might be a subject for legal action.
And counts your age for purposes of things like voting or military service as starting at birth. Say you're born already 9 months old may be rhetorically justifiable, but there's going to be a lot of legal issues involved in actually codifying that into law.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but I think there needs to be some consideration of the the questions and issues that are going to be involved.
It's not just about what I think. It's also about what the government might do with it if they want to make your life hell.
Murder is the taking of a life. It isn't dependent on the citizenship of the person being murdered. You get prosecuted for taking the life of a human being, citizen or not.
There’s a difference between investigating the cause of a known miscarriage, a suspected miscarriage, and an *apparent* miscarriage.
Miscarriages are signaled by bleeding and cramping. Any bleeding and cramping could therefore be construed as an *apparent* miscarriage.
The whole medical system would be overwhelmed if it had to investigate every instance of cramping and bleeding in a woman who was sexually active in some way.
It’s not even reasonable.
I agree. Would evidence of alcohol use or poor diet be a basis for legal action?
Can a reasonable case be made that a woman may endanger the health of a developing fetus by neglecting her own health?
Okay. A woman is examined by her doctor, and he determines she's a couple of months pregnant. He examines her again a month later, and now she isn't, How would you characterize that?
Few women see a doctor for most cases of bleeding and cramping, especially if they experience this every month, as most of us do. Many see a doctor if they believe they are having or have had a miscarriage, or have a frightening level of bleeding. I’d say there’s an obvious difference in the experience for most.
Pain and extreme cramping can be symptoms of STDs or other serious health problems, as well.
My point is that many women are seeing a doctor in this sort of circumstance. Just as women are regularly screened (by law) for STDs when they seek prenatal care, it wouldn’t “overwhelm the system” for them to be screened for signs of induced abortion, if that were considered a public issue, when they’re at the doctor having a blood test anyway.
There have been some cases of women’s being subject to legal action for drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or other dangerous behavior when pregnant. This is quite bizarre, considering that the same woman could have a legal abortion and deliberately kill the unborn child at any point.
Obviously, there’s a lot of flux in this area. I was simply observing that medical follow-up in the case of miscarriage is already commonplace.
Okay, then we're talking about the state having the responsibility for and authority over a fetus from the time of conception as they do over any other child in their jurisdiction.
We don’t see an ob/gyn (or any doctor) monthly, as a rule. If a woman has gone to a doctor presenting a pregnancy, and the pregnancy is verified, then it can be assumed that both she and the doctor will want to know what happened if the pregnancy terminates prematurely. At the 2 month-3 month increment you present, she might not know there’s a problem until the doctor identifies it. Unborn babies can die without immediate symptoms for the mother.
How many times have you been pregnant, anyway?
Oh, then, I guess you’re right.
Since we can’t figure out when to protect a fetus from murder,
let’s just let it be killed at any time for any reason at the whim of the woman carrying it.
That would be the “right” thing to do, now wouldn’t it?
I'm just considering what the consequences might be. Laws don't always get applied as they were intended when they were written, and sometimes end up having the exact opposite result of what was intended.
I must be evil to ask if there could be any unintended consequences.
That's true. However, practically every state has had laws against abortion in the past. The general result was fewer, but not zero, abortions. I don't recall anything about doctors' being expected to investigate or report on apparent miscarriages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.