CNN Mississippi Amendment
The problem I still have is that the Conservatives seem to want to take responsibility for the life of the unborn fetus. (ie force it's birth) Yet when that unwanted child is born, abused, impoverished or neglected, they seem to run for the hills. Worse yet they take their wallets with them.
I was having a discussion with a Conservative that was so happy that the Republicans were making headway in cutting the funding for Planned Parenthood. However when I asked about additional funding for Early Childhood Education Funding, Parent Education Funding and other things that could help these kids, they in essence said that that was the Parent's responsibility...
Life Romney
Now let me repeat this again to help you see the hypocrisy:
- The Conservative says that I am responsible to make sure your child gets born and will use the Government to do it, since you the Parent are incapable of making the Right decision.
- The Conservative says that once the child is born I bear no responsibility for the life and well being of that child, and that the Government has to stay out of it because it is the Parent's job and they know best.
Now if the Conservatives were Pro-Life before and after birth, I would probably have more in common with them. But the bullets above are so inconsistent that I wonder how they sleep at night. Then again we humans do have an amazing ability to rationalize our flawed logic.
57 comments:
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility but they define it very narrowly. When they cut funding, they assume responsibility, but they disclaim responsibility when whatever that funding was used to pay for is also cut. It's something I have gotten used to.
--Hiram
I agree with you John to a point. First many people see abortion as MURDER. Therefore, it is not forcing someone to give birth as much are stopping murder?!
Next, society has a responsibility for that life. If the parents are not capable of properly raising that child, then society needs to step in to protect that child. The problem I see is that Govt may not be the best group to do this. There are many other organizations that I would say should step up (non-profits, churches and adoption agencies). But, that maybe because I don't look to the Govt first to help with social issues.
Thoughts??
Before you accuse someone of faulty logic or inconsistency, you better take a look at your assumptions. First of all, we agree that human life begins at conception. At what point, then, does killing an innocent human being become acceptable? If you start with the premise of life beginning at conception, then arguing for abortion is arguing for infanticide, or the right of parents to kill their kids at any time. THAT is consistent, but not desirable.
Second, you claim that mothers-to-be have the right and therefore the responsibility to terminate their pregnancy (aka murder the unborn child), yet after they are born they are somehow society's responsibility FIRST? That's not consistent, either.
Now, preventing murder is a government responsibility. Feeding and Clothing your kids is not, unless you are actually abusing the kids, in which case you are again acting criminally and the government has to put you away and see to it that the kids don't suffer for it. That's consistent, too, under the rule of law. Now, when GOVERNMENT commits child abuse by trapping kids in failing schools, nothing is said, but that's a different subject.
Finally, I will point out that conservatives are far more charitable, quietly, than most liberals, and because it is private charity it is vastly more effective. I know a number of people in "Rescue" efforts, looking after expectant women and their resulting children, plus many more caring for poor children in various ways. I do NOT see liberals engaged thusly, since they prefer to use government to FORCE charity upon the unwilling taxpayers, and then squander the money on feel-good but wantonly ineffective government dictates.
J. Ewing
I guess I am going to flip flop on you a bit. I said it would be hard to argue against the premise that would "define life as beginning at the moment of conception". Now "Life" and "Murder" may be a long way apart.
Now for the fine print... When does the brain become self aware? When is the soul introduced into the body? If these things have not happened, are these growing cells actually a living human yet?
When someone is brain dead and we pull the plug, are we killing a human or is their soul already gone?
When Conservatives refuse to pay more taxes to support social programs and healthcare for all. Are they actually killing people through their greed? If a Mother separates a 12 wk old fetus from it's food source (ie her) and it dies, is it murder? How is different Conservatives building up their bank account while others die?
NumbersGuy,
I think making abortion laws is definitely making a family/social issue into a government issue. That is why I find it so confounding. If Conservatives want small Government, then get them out of our family decisions.
As for organizations, there just aren't enough and their funding is abysmal. We modern Americans are too busy spending on that new bigger house, nicer car, new phone, etc. And if we get lucky, people may take care of someone in their Church or immediate sphere. But Lord knows that does nothing for single mother who is a non-Christian down in North Mpls.
J,
Stopping murder is only a Government duty because us citizens set it up that way. We get to set and reset the laws as time goes by... Otherwise abortion and physician assisted suicide wouldn't keep coming up.
The Conservatives would be first in line to criticize Liberals for making "Parenting" laws. (ie anti-bullying, corporal punishment, etc) They would say that the Government should not be involved in how a Parent raises or disciplines their child. Lord knows the Conservatives are anti-social services... (or at least paying for it...)
Yet on the other hand they are happy to have the Government enforce their values on others... Very confusing???
Hiram,
That is a very good point.
Wiki Abortion and Crime
Wiki Abortion and Crime 2
I can already see it. The Conservatives get Roe v Wade over turned... And in 20 yrs they will be complaining about how the "Liberal" government isn't controlling crime well enough... And the murder rate is too high...
The good news is it would give great data for these economists and social scientists. Then we could be sure that bringing unwanted and unsupported kids into the world does cause problems.
Or maybe we will hear that those prisons cost too much... Gotta get that capital punishment going... Now isn't that another inconsistency? Especially if they help wind up the violence cycle...
As I continue to work on the puzzle of why anyone would vote for any candidate of the modern day GOP, the one piece that makes sense to me is the pro life voter. That is until I actually talked with a pro life activist and learned about her radical (and I believe common) opposition to all forms of contraception. I think some of the inconsistency in conservatives views that John mentioned comes from wanting to control the sex life of women. It is not only about protecting the lives of fetuses.
Maybe some prolife conservative can explain to me why cutting funds to planned parenthood is a good idea when public dollars go towards women's health and contraception and not for providing abortion services. Fewer unplanned pregnancies is fewer abortions.
Laurie,
Good point.
Apparently ~3%... So 97% goes to women's health and preventing the problem, yet they would cut the funding and celebrate... Amazing
Examiner Planned Parenthood pie chart
"some of the inconsistency in conservatives views that John mentioned comes from wanting to control the sex life of women" -- Laurie
How odd. I thought it was the conservative position that women should control their own sex lives, so that abortion would become unnecessary. That argument is consistent with defunding planned parenthood, and with not wanting to pay for government-based social services through taxation, because if women are responsible for their own sex lives, then the general taxpayer is NOT.
J. Ewing
Here we go again...
We want you to be reponsible as long as you do it our way and it doesn't cost me anything...
No, we want you to be responsible as long as you are responsible. If you are responsible enough to be having sex, you are responsible for the foreseeable consequences.
J. Ewing
J, You are correct, if you have sex the woman CAN GET Pregnant. There are consequences and responsibility for ones actions.
If you are unaware of that fact, we have other problems????
The Church should be taking a lead in this area of helping woman with unplanned pregnancies more then they do, so Govt would not have to be involved unless a crime was committed.
The women are being responsible, just not per your belief system.
They have gotten pregnant due to being immature, stupid, a torn condom, being the unlucky percentage, etc.
They evaluate the situation, weigh the consequences to themselves and the potential child, and they make a decision. Then they have to live with the consequences of the decision until they die.
And possibly longer if God chooses to judge their choice as poor. I think that is God's job, not ours... Yet we keep throwing our stones.
Speaking of responsibility, I wonder where the man fits into your thoughts? Or is only the woman responsible? Where does the Gov't fit into holding him accountable in your world view.
cost comparison:
a one year prescription of birth contol pills through planned parenthood: ~$250
means tested welfare entitlement spending for one family for one year: over $25,000
Confronting the Unsustainable Growth of Welfare Entitlements: Principles of Reform and the Next Steps
Seems to me providing access to contraception for $250 is much wiser than telling the young women not to have sex.
"They have gotten pregnant due to being immature, stupid, a torn condom, being the unlucky percentage, etc."
So how does any of that relieve her of the responsibility? In fact, if she knows that some taxpayer-funded do-gooder will rush to the rescue, what is her incentive to exercise said personal responsiblity? You get more of what you fund, you know, so funding personal irresponsibility begets...
"Seems to me providing access to contraception for $250 is much wiser than telling the young women not to have sex."
Wrong. If we told young women that they would bear the entire cost of having irresponsible sex, that there would be ZERO welfare for them, Then the difference would be between taxpayers paying $250 for birth control (for somebody that shouldn't be having sex in the first place) and paying ZERO for means-tested welfare. That's an INFINITE difference.
"Speaking of responsibility, I wonder where the man fits into your thoughts? Or is only the woman responsible?"
That question is difficult only because of the wording. Historically, women have held the ultimate responsibility because they were the ones who bore the more serious consequences and because they had the right to say "no." New fangled notions of female equality have diluted this rule to the point where women feel freer to act irresponsibly and, consequently, men feel absolutely no sense of responsibility at all. Society in general used to do a pretty good job of holding men responsible for their wicked ways – "shotgun weddings" weren't at all uncommon – and government also acted to enforce men's responsibility, by requiring that a father be named, and requiring child support be paid. These days, with women as seemingly eager participants in sexual irresponsibility, the old social and even legal norms no longer apply. I don't know how to fix that until some way can be found to, first of all, stop rewarding irresponsibility, and then to start forcing responsibility – yes, through government – on all parties.
Nothing we have been discussing removes the responsibility from the woman or man. Even with abortion available, they bear the consequence of their poor choice or bad luck. Just in a different way.
The pro-life belief system is the one that would pass the consequence of the poor choice or bad luck onto society. (ie forcing unwanted and unsupported kids into our society) Now are they willing to pay the cost of their unintended consequence? My guess is no.
"Even with abortion available, they bear the consequence of their poor choice or bad luck."
That is incorrect. if you define human life as beginning at conception, then the consequences of irresponsible sex fall most heavily on the innocent result of that irresponsibility, and the consequence is the murder of an innocent "bystander."
"The pro-life belief system is the one that would pass the consequence of the poor choice or bad luck onto society."
I simply can't understand how anyone would believe this. Is there no notion whatsoever of personal responsibility? Just because you make a poor choice or have some bad luck does society then owe you a living? Or is it only the choice of irresponsible sex which creates this protection?
Let me ask a hypothetical. Suppose you are a working poor couple, barely getting by, and the condom you use for birth control fails. It does happen. You are willing to accept the child into your home because of your pro-life beliefs, but you are going to struggle financially at best, and may be unable to provide for your kids in the manner that some government bureaucrat might find acceptable. Does that mean that the taxpayer is required to support my wanted child, or that I am required to accept these government payments?
J. Ewing
As we have discussed dozens of times, you are against holding Parents accountable for being good Parents... Remember how you scoffed at the idea of Teacher's grading Parents, and you are doing it again in your last comment.
Yet you would insist that these "irresponsible" people bring their accidental child into this society against their will to be potentially neglected and/or abused. Therefore propagating this "irresponsible" behavior into the next generation. Therefore driving additional costs into our society. (ie crime, prisons, social services, etc)
If you want to hold these "irresponsible" parents accountable, that means someone needs to grade their performance and hold them accountable. Otherwise it is just a bunch of wishful thinking and words.
As for conception, remember my questions:
"Now for the fine print... When does the brain become self aware? When is the soul introduced into the body? If these things have not happened, are these growing cells actually a living human yet?
When someone is brain dead and we pull the plug, are we killing a human or is their soul already gone?"
"As for conception, remember my questions:..."
Let us turn the question around for a moment. Obviously, the point at which abortion equates to murder depends upon that point at which the product of conception becomes defined as a human being. Personally, I have always been willing to concede, for legal rather than scientific debate, that that point may occur as late as when the child would be medically capable of survival outside the womb. Indeed, we may legally define this point at conception, at three months of gestation, five months of gestation, physical birth or one year of age. Call it a "retroactive abortion" if you dislike the word murder, but it is entirely dependent on legal definition. So I will also ask, at what point in a child's life do the parents become responsible for it? Surely this is just as much a question of legal definition as it is moral certainty, yes? So, define that point at which two parents start being responsible for what their irresponsible behavior created.
I am not arguing that there are not some parents without the financial and emotional wherewithal to raise a child to some minimally acceptable "community standard." We have community, charitable and government organizations who intervene as necessary (sometimes too much and sometimes too little) in such situations. Nonetheless, the responsibility should and must remain with the natural parents to the maximum degree possible, and certainly for the first nine months or so, since the first responsibility of parents ought to be not to kill the child.
In short, why are those responsible for a child allowed or even encouraged to shunt that responsibility off onto the general taxpayer, who is completely innocent in the matter, or to escape responsibility by killing the completely innocent child?
J. Ewing
Personally I believe the end of the first tri-mester is a good compromise. Looks like many agree.
Wiki Trimester
To finish...
And I think the current laws are pretty consistent with this, except in extreme cases.
Therefore to answer your questions.
Parent's perogative for ~13 wks after conception.
Week 14 and beyond, society should hold them accountable for raising that child in a socially acceptable manner. (ie no neglect, abuse, etc)
And I forgot.
At the other end of the life cycle, pull the plug once that brain activity is gone. The loved has left the building...
J. Ewing,
I was surprised to find much to agree with in your most recent comment. This sentence which includes the word government in it was especially surprising to me:
"We have community, charitable and government organizations who intervene as necessary (sometimes too much and sometimes too little) in such situations."
I would add more but I am being pestered to get off the computer.
"Week 14 and beyond, society should hold them accountable for raising that child in a socially acceptable manner. (ie no neglect, abuse, etc)"
Sidestepping the issue of when human life begins as a scientific and moral/spiritual matter, I would be happy with your statement above, with two perhaps insurmountable quibbles over language. The first is the word "should." I do not believe that this is even remotely the case at present, since Roe v. Wade has been misinterpreted to allow a child to be killed up to and during the process of birth. I would call that abuse and the "pro-life" people are right to find it socially unacceptable.
The second is the word "them." I don't remember the real numbers, but I was discussing this several years ago with one of the people from the crisis pregnancy center. Again, rough numbers, she said that 30 years ago, 10% of unplanned pregnancies ended in abortion, 10% ended in single mothers, and 80% were given up for adoption. 10 years ago, unplanned pregnancies were up substantially, but 50% ended in abortion, and the other 50% kept the baby. Easy access to abortion decreased the sense of responsibility for casual sex, the social stigma of single motherhood has disappeared, and government welfare has stepped in to take the place of father and breadwinner. There is no "them" to hold responsible anymore, would that there were.
Tackling these two major social and legal changes piecemeal seems like something very difficult. It is why changing the legal definition of personhood seems like the easier way.
J. Ewing
This has been a very good learning opportunity for me.
Apparently the concept of viability that we discussed is the central tenant of Roe v Wade. And it pretty much set that point at ~20 wks as compared to my 14 wks. Wiki Fetal Viability
After that, States can require that the Doctors must prove life threatening risk to Mother, or that the fetus/infant is not viable.
WikiLate term
And I don't see where the fire is on these "Late Term procedures" given the distribution data. 98.5% before wk 20 and safeguards after wk 20 to prevent a viable fetus/infant from being aborted.Guttmacher Fact Sheet
My guess is that the Pro Life folks will only be happy if no procedures are ever performed. And maybe only if birth control is stopped altogether, because remember the words of Monty Python... Every sperm is sacred...
Thanks for interesting info/links.
I have one last comment on this topic. It is a link to a story I find quite disturbing. It describes long prison sentences for women who did not choose abortion, but whose pregnancies did not result in healthy births for other reasons.
15-Year-Old Girl Faces Life in Prison for a Miscarriage? Why Conservatives Are Criminalizing Pregnant Women
What a waste of lives and tax dollars.
Actually, Laurie, I think what you are referring to is what I consider one of the best resolutions, at present, for a "compromise" on the question. I still recall it being a ruling from So. Carolina, or somewhere.
The judge ruled based on CONTRACT law, that since the woman had a "right" under Roe to abortion up to viability, that not seeking one to that point she had implicitly contracted with the viable human being (her unborn child) to bring him to a healthy birth. She was a cocaine addict and wanted to abort so she could indulge her habit. Seems like that was putting the responsibility right where it belonged, yes? Such a ruling could be extended to the fathers, too, with salubrious result.
J. Ewing
J,
I think I agree with your logic, however shouldn't they be going after man slaughter charges instead of murder? It seems a human died as an unintentional result of some irresponsible action. (ie no intent to murder)
I'm not seeing the source of your comment. Abortion after the point of viability (or if you are pro-life, after conception) is the DELIBERATE taking of a human life, which is murder. I don't think anyone has proposed criminalizing miscarriage.
Another way to look at it: There are solid pluralities if not outright majorities in this country that would outlaw abortion for purposes of convenience, birth control, or sex selection, but NOT for gross fetal deformity or the life and reproductive health of the mother. All of that before the point of viability, of course, and the life and health exceptions carrying through to term.
J. Ewing
Do you guys even read my link before commenting? You seemed to have confused quite a few details and missed this very relevant point:
"Another, from a group of psychologists, laments the misunderstanding of addiction that lies behind the indictment. Gibbs did not take cocaine because she had a "depraved heart" or to "harm the fetus but to satisfy an acute psychological and physical need for that particular substance", says the brief."
Giving a woman who misscarried a long prison term because drug use may have been a factor is the best resolution? That seems very illogical to me and lacking in compassion.
An addicted drunk crosses the centerline and kills a small child in an on coming car. What should we do with the drunk? Feel sorry for them because they are addicted??? How would this be any different?
And yes I read the whole article.
Adults are to be held responsible for breaking the law, even when they are addicted. Or a meth addict that steals to support their habit would have any easy get out of jail free card.
In this case, she killed her viable child with her habit. Intentional or not... Sad but true.
The addicted guy chooses to operate a vehicle while drunk, clearly kills someone else's child and receives a jail sentence of 4 years or less.
(A DUI-manslaughter-with-ordinary-negligence conviction typically brings a sentence of up to 4 years imprisonment for each person killed.)
The pregnant addict does nothing beyond continue to use (in some stories continued use was not proven) possibly harms her own fetus (which may or may not be related to chemical use- nonusers also frequently miscarry )and receives a long or even life sentence.
The three differences in this comparison seem quite significant to me.
If sentencing were up to me the pregnant addict would get treatment and no jailtime and the drunk driver would also get treatment and a short prison sentence, followed by loss of driving license and/or technology that would prevent future driving of his vehicle while under the influence.
"An addicted drunk crosses the centerline and kills a small child in an on coming car. What should we do with the drunk? Feel sorry for them because they are addicted???"
Presumably, the person is addicted to alcohol, not driving.
--Hiram
Laurie, I am sorry to say I did not peruse your link before commenting. But now that I have, I see no reason to change my comment. The case to which I refer was one in which a woman sought a late term abortion so she could continue to use drugs without harming the child. Thanks to your article, I see the possibility that she was trying to avoid prison time, rather than being concerned for the unborn child – at least showing some strange sense of responsibility. That possibility (of seeking to avoid punishment) makes her even less right than before.
I won't claim that these laws prosecuting women for harming their unborn children are always fair, and I can easily imagine them being unfairly applied. But a woman addicted to drugs has no business becoming pregnant, and if she does she apparently has the legal right to terminate that pregnancy early on. It isn't fair that women are the only ones prosecuted, but they are the only ones who can become pregnant following irresponsible sex, and that's just the way it is. They have always born the bulk of responsibility, and the intent of these laws is to hold them responsible.
If you want to construct (and operate) the law so that this responsibility does not kick in until the point of fetal viability, feel free; it makes some sense because at that point there is a second but very dependent human being involved. What women need to understand is that this point in time will inevitably arrive, and if they are being irresponsible prior to that point they are risking a charge of negligent homicide, and that is the purpose of the law, to deter the criminal from committing the crime. Where this gets tricky, of course, is in the case of miscarriage. We have all heard, I think, of men punching women in the belly in an attempt to induce a miscarriage. Obviously that is not an accident. The time was when every miscarriage was a tragedy, but with our depraved society we now have to have a trial to decide if it was a tragedy or a crime, and the result is a tragedy either way.
J. Ewing
Sorry for the delay I was in a delightful little "no service" zone for 48 hrs. It was great.
So this is all this innocent Mother did???
"The pregnant addict does nothing beyond continue to use (in some stories continued use was not proven) possibly harms her own fetus (which may or may not be related to chemical use- nonusers also frequently miscarry )and receives a long or even life sentence."
Have you lost your mind? In a world of crack babies, fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. She may as well have put a gun in the babies mouth.
I believe my mind is the most rational on this comment thread. I don't condone drug/alcohol use by pregnant women I just don't see it as a crime deserving of a long prison sentence.
Back to my original point I favor affordable/free contraceptives for all. I'd also counsel pregnant addicts to consider abortion. To me crack babies are more likely the result of conservatives restricting access to these services.
So how long would you imprison an addict who continued use while pregnant? This whole subtopic I introduced seems anti women to me.
Anti-women?
If a human being is unintentionally murdered because of someone else's drug or alcohol addiction, I think the addicted party had better at least face man slaughter charges. I do not think it should matter if the addict is a man, woman, or any other variation of human.
I think you are forgetting that that per current law, after ~20 wks, it is truly an human infant in the womb of that woman. Not just a bunch of cells.
Imagine if the infant was one month old. All cute and cuddly. And the Mother got high and starved the child to death, dropped them on their head, left them in a hot/cold car, etc. Would you really just say, let's get her a little treatment.
Now to test who is being sexist. What if it is the Father who unintentionally kills that cute cuddly 1 mth old while high or drunk. What would you do with him? Just get him a little treatment?
How about if Mom or Dad were drunk or high transporting the baby in a car. Now the baby is a cute little 1 yr old who has just started walking. You know the time, when they are smiling, full of life and so full of amazement as they learn new things. Just picture them. Now due to the drugs or alcohol the babies head is crushed in a car accident. More treatment for Mom or Dad and no jail time?
Now life in prison is probably too long, that's why I recommend man slaughter. Either way there had better be some serious prison time for all of these irresponsible behaviors in which a human was killed.
I've chosen not to weigh in on the broader debate, mostly because I've had this conversation so many times, and nobody's mind is ever changed.
But as to the issue of prosecuting the mother for prenatal drug/alcohol use: First, fetal alcohol syndrome (which is far more prevalent and has more dire consequences than most drugs) is a truly horrible thing. It absolutely breaks my heart to see babies born with no real chance to ever achieve success (learning disabilities, diminished IQ, etc). And especially since it's entirely, 100% preventable. But. BUT. Prison sentences for the mother--a knee-jerk respose if I've ever seen one--won't do one thing to address the problem. "The Needle and the Damage Done," as Neil Young sang. How does this solve anything? Consider also that chemical dependency treatment is far less expensive than incarceration.
The US has unbelievably high rates of FAS compared to the rest of the world, even though our overall alcohol consumption rates aren't necessarily that high. Weird, huh? The only reasons for the babies born sick are poverty (ie, very poor people in any culture are most likely to abuse substances) and poor prenatal care, which, since the damage happens early in the pregnancy, can be tied directly to poor health care in general. I can't imagine there are pregnant women out there--absent true sociopaths--who drink and abuse drugs with reckless abandon, without a care or a regret. It's undoubtedly the result of unplanned pregnancy, untreated addiction, and utter lack of ongoing preventive health care.
If we really care about healthy babies, including FAS and such, we'll put our collective money where our mouth is and establish a decent system of health care that benefits mothers and babies (and seniors, and kids, and all the rest of us)--including free or low-cost contraception. If not, then let's all sit down and pay the consequences in the form of special ed students who become welfare adults at best, and criminals at worst.
--Annie
"I've chosen not to weigh in on the broader debate, mostly because I've had this conversation so many times, and nobody's mind is ever changed." -- Annie
Annie, please excuse me if I am mildly amused by your comment. I am certain I have had this conversation at least as many times as you have, but I am always willing to have it again because one always needs to polish and refine one's argument, both to better persuade those of the opposite view and to reconfirm your own view on the subject. That no one's mind seems to be changed by this discussion simply indicates the strength of conviction (but IMHO not necessarily the strength of the reasoning) on both sides. Besides, if someone's mind WAS actually changed by one of these discussions, it might not be immediately and it most certainly would not be admitted to if it were, would it?
"I believe my mind is the most rational on this comment thread. I don't condone drug/alcohol use by pregnant women I just don't see it as a crime deserving of a long prison sentence. " – Laurie
It is possible to rationally defend almost anything, but to arrive at the truth you have to begin reasoning from the correct fundamental principles. In this case, I do not believe that the abuse and murder of innocent human beings can be rationally squared with the humane treatment of the perpetrator. I will agree with you, however, that these women do not deserve a long prison sentence, because it is after-the-fact. What happened in the case I referenced was that the woman was imprisoned until the baby was delivered, meaning that she could not take the drugs that were harming the baby in her care. It was simply "Child protective services" applied a little early.
A couple of people have suggested that what we should be doing is offering proper prenatal care, contraception or healthcare to these pregnant or soon-to-be pregnant women, as a better solution. But the problem isn't that these services are not available, but that the women are not exercising their responsibility to access those services! It would be one thing if a cocaine addict became pregnant (because of irresponsible sex), sought treatment for her addiction (or an immediate abortion) and was denied it, but in none of these anecdotes have I heard of this being the case. In EVERY case, it seems, the woman is attempting to avoid responsibility for irresponsible behavior. Not only is that wrong for her personally, but the suggested solution of making the society at large somehow responsible is simply unacceptable. All that does is beget more irresponsible behavior.
J. Ewing
Oh come on, J. When the very first words you post on the topic are comparing it to murder, it's pretty clear you're not open to debate. You know full well you're not going to budge on this issue. Frankly, I don't expect you to. Conservative older white men are the single most solidly anti-choice bloc.
As a nation we have extremely poor prenatal care--among the worst in the world. I have no idea why you think quality prenatal care is so widely available. Where on earth did you get that idea? It's not.
You care so deeply about the health of the child until the moment it exits the mother's body, and then, as far as conservatives are concerned, she can get back to work. Because paid leave is bad for the corporate bottom line, right? Except that every other industrialized nation in the world has figured out a way to make it work.
The very fact that you think you can we can incarcerate our way out of a problem like FAS is just absurd (but only until the child is born). You'd rather pay for prisons than clinics. What kind of a nation will that make us?
Whatever. your priorities aren't my priorities. You're clearly pro-birth, J. I'm going to just leave it at that.
--Annie
Hi Annie,
Would you exonerate the addicts in all of the examples I gave? (ie they are not responsible for their choices because society failed them)
The upside is that the prisons would likely be empty fairly soon. Since I am pretty sure most of them felt forced into their bad behavior because "Society" failed them. However I am not sure the streets will be too safe.
Interesting
I'm not exonerating anyone. I'm not sure where you get that from my comments. . . ?
I'm saying if we want to fix the problem, then let's fix the problem.
If we're talking about lowering FAS, then education and prenatal care will do those things. If we're talking about punishing hypothetical women, we can have that discussion separately.
I'm all for investing in healthier babies. I'm less enthusiastic about spending money to incarcerate their mothers after the damage is done.
--Annie
Why do we (the US) think that prison is the solution to everything, anyway?
We have more people in prison than any other nation--2.3 million. The next closest is China with 1.6 million.
Here are a few more to chew on: the US has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. The only other major industrialized nation that even comes close is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. England's rate is 151; Germany's is 88; and Japan's is 63.
The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.
So let's lock people up more! We're number one! We're number one!
--Annie
Annie,
Thanks for adding your wisdom to the comment thread. Your insights/explanations are excellent as always.
I have nothing more to say, as all opinions seem quite set. The whole thread does make me more likely to support pro choice women candidates with my time and money.
"Oh come on, J. When the very first words you post on the topic are comparing it to murder, it's pretty clear you're not open to debate. " -- Annie
You are wrong. I am perfectly open to debate, but I'm not certain you are. After all, you haven't challenged the assumptions that lead to that statement, or, that I can tell, the statement itself. You haven't offered a rational argument why it is NOT murder, only an emotional objection to characterizing your position as such, and only now. YOUR first comment was that it is futile to debate because minds are never changed. Perhaps that is because you won't change your mind? I know what I believe and can defend it in a debate, though poorly.
The problem with this "debate" has always been that it isn't so much a debate as a highly emotional argument, largely devoid of rationality and not based on accepted common definitions of terms. And I am not certain it can be. For example, just because the legal definition of a human being/citizen is one who is "born" does not mean that the scientific, moral and ethical definitions must be the same. Change the legal definition of "person" to "at conception" and abortion IS legally murder. Without changing the legal definition, it is scientifically, morally and ethically the equivalent of murder. Taking drugs that knowingly harm the unborn child, including alcohol, is a form of child abuse, except in the legal sense and that is, fortunately, changing.
This discussion has centered around, thankfully, the question of who is responsible for the consequences of a sex act. It is by definition the participants in it, and that responsibility should not be avoided by terminating the life of the innocent "byproduct" of the act, nor by dumping that responsibility on the larger society through government force. This is what would be called "natural law" and it makes perfect sense. Now we just need the legal system to catch up, if it can.
J. Ewing
I thought it was an excellent thread. It helped me to learn that I truly do agree with Roe V Wade. I had not realized that the ruling was as much of a compromise as it is. It took a very pragmatic look and drew a very important line at 20 wks.
Now I just wish the Conservatives would accept that line and stop torturing Mothers, Fathers and Health care professionals that want to exercise their legal rights.
And I wish the Liberals would accept that line and start treating Mothers, Fathers and Health Professionals that injure or kill a viable infant after that point as the criminals they are.
The law is pretty clear on these points. Yet people harass or kill the legally innocent and protect the legally guilty. Very interesting discussion. Thank you !!!
about "And I wish the Liberals would accept that line and start treating Mothers, Fathers and Health Professionals that injure or kill a viable infant after that point as the criminals they are.
The law is pretty clear on these points. Yet people harass or kill the legally innocent and protect the legally guilty."
The correct term is "fetus" not "infant" and the law is far from settled on this.
I do not believe pregnant women in MN are prosecuted for miscarriages of still births.
After the viable threshold is crossed, I like the term infant. It helps us to remember that the fetus is now a human, and not just a collection of cells.
As for still borns and being law abiding. Many many car accidents occur in which humans die, yet rarely are people charged with man slaughter or murder...
I think this rationale aligns pretty well with the death of a 20+ week old infant/fetus. It is man slaughter or murder if someone's grossly reckless actions caused the death. And an act of God if it just happens. Seperating the 2 is why we have Police, District Attourneys and Judges.
I think that we should just be happy that physician assisted euthanasia is still legal from 21 wks to 40 wks in certain extreme circumstances. Now if we could just let adults have that choice, but that is a different topic altogether...
John, that is an interesting debating technique, just change definitions of words to support your point. I haven't yet figured out how to do this, but maybe as I try to persuade you on other issues I can make use of this strategy.
Laurie,
You are welcome !!!
Now is a 36 wk premie in an incubator any more an infant than a 36 baby in the womb? My guess is that they are both thinking and feeling in the same way.
An after thought, would you let the mother smother the premie when she was high?
One more note,
Make that a 24 wk old premie. One of my friend's sons was born as such. Now he is healthy and happy at 8 yrs old.
John, argueing unrelated, made up cases is another great strategy. The facts that started this whole subtopic were a life sentence for a still birth at 36 weeks, with no evidence that drug abuse had anthing to do it. There is no premie infant and if there was the impact of the mothers alcohol/drug use would be unknown.
Did I mention that non using mothers also have miscarriages, still births and premies.
Now I am done with this topic for good. Funny thing is when prochoice topics come up on progressive blogs, I am usually conservative compared to the opinions shared there. I am not typically a stident prochoice person.
John, I do have one more comment/question after all. It seems the logical result of your views would be for a full investigation of both parents followed by a grand jury hearing each time a pregnancy ends in miscarriage, stillbirth or premature birth. As my final link explains the fathers drug use/exposure may be a significant factor as well.
http://www.fasalaska.com/DadsBirthDefects.html
What do you think, is this full investigation of both parents a good idea, why or why not?
Kind of like the car accident scenario. Were the parties within the bounds of normalcy, or was a party grossly negligent?
Did the Father or Mother use ILLEGAL drugs?
Did the Mother or Father abuse legal substances excessively?
Did a death occur?
If yes, then a DA should certainly look into it and see if charges are justified.
As I have said before, life in prison is definitely overkill if that drunk crossing the centerline and killing someone only gets 4 yrs... But I think there needs to be consequences if someone acts irresponsibly and it leads to the death of another human.
The upside to jury trials is that proof does need to be presented and evaluated. If the Defendent is innocent, hopefully they will typically rule in their favor. If not, maybe they really were excessively negligent.
Laurie, running away from a debate is the sign of a weak argument, and you are better than that. I grant we have roamed far afield and batted at straw men all around, but I am guessing that if we had a narrow focus, we would be closer to agreement than you might imagine.
For example, I readily agree with you that life imprisonment for a miscarriage is a miscarriage of justice, under any circumstance OTHER than intentional inducement of a viable human being. Even then, I would consider extenuating circumstance, like "life and reproductive health of the mother."
But this debate started with conservatives being accused of hypocrisy for wanting government to, in my words, prevent the murder of unborn children while, again in my words, forcing taxpayers to assume all responsibility for irresponsible sex and the children it produces. Now you can define that as hypocrisy if you want, but it is hard to square with logic, natural law or common sense.
J. Ewing
I agree that we are probably closer than it would seem, though I am planning to post on crime and punishment someday. Since my Liberal contigent has left me very confused as to how and when they feel people should go to jail???
Personal accountability vs Societal accountability...
Post a Comment