Why would an order to prosecution be a logical consequence of that?
Perhaps I worded that wrong. I wasn’t arguing that it would be, I was saying that there are already plenty of examples of parents that are “abusing” their children with unhealthy behavior(smoking, dietary, lifestyle choices) and don’t get prosecuted for it currently. Hell, unless it’s on the extreme end of things, it isn’t even illegal. Why would there necessarily be “special” privileges for the unborn, if the purpose of the Pro-life agenda is to treat the fetus the same as a baby?
What a leap in logic and fallacy. Well done, DT, well done.
How do you explain anti-choice people who are against any form of birth control, or who are for reducing funding to agencies that provide for the health of lower-income children, or who have no problem with abortion when the pregnancy is due to rape? I’ve known plenty of people who are against abortion, yet it’s obvious the primary reason they are against it is that they see pregnancy as a negative consequence of pre-marital sex. You may not be of that type, but there are lots of people who are against abortion solely because, in their sick minds, it encourages sex for non-reproductive reasons and that is EEEVIL.
You are addressing three different issues, here:
-
Some people ARE against any form of birth control, but that’s a fringe element of the “pro-life” movement. Some people believe that easy contraception has created an “anti-child” mindset in our society, and leads to lifestyles which are not moral. both of which lead to more abortions. But this isn’t an indication that they don’t care about children…in fact, their contention would be that MORE focus should be placed on children, and what is good for them, vs. self-indulgence on the part of adults.
-
As pointed out upthread, wanting to reduce funding to certain government agencies may have to do with many things other than not caring about what happens to children. Many people just think that the government is generally inefficient and wasteful, and they would prefer to donate time and money to private efforts, instead. How do you explain people who complain about taxes, but give thousands of dollars a year to charities for needy children? There are a lot of such people out there.
-
People who are against abortion even in the case of rape are showing MORE committment to life than people who would allow it in the case of rape. If anything, allowing that exception is MORE indicative of someone who has an anti-sex, or punish-people-for-sex mindset than not.
But getting back to the OP, I agree with what YamatoTwinkie said. When government starts getting so intrusive in our lives that they come into our homes to monitor what we are feeding our kids, then I think we can start worrying about them monitoring what pregnant women eat. Until then, I think it’s a huge leap to assume that will happen.
I understand that the anti-choice people who are against birth control are a minority, but the assertion was being made that these people only exist in my head. They are not figments of my imagination and they are influential within the movement. And anyone who is against birth control is either incredibly naive and short-sighted, or thinks that it is better to bring unwanted children in the world than allow people control over their reproduction, which means they don’t really care that much about children.
There are people who are against abortion and government aid to needy children, who give willingly to charities and some who even adopt these unwanted children. There are also people who are against abortion and government aid to needy children, who also don’t give a dime to charity and have zero sympathy for poor children (especially ones of the “wrong” color). To say these people don’t exist or that they do care about children is a lie.
You are agreeing with me here, re-read what I said. I think people who are against abortion except in cases of rape are putting more importance on the sexual responsibility of the mother than the lives of the children. I respect anti-choice people who are against abortion even in the case of rape a LOT more than those who are against abortion, except when the pregnancy wasn’t the mother’s “fault”.
No one said they were. Ají de Gallina said:
Most pro-lifers do care about children. Some don’t, but you haven’t shown any evidence that they are in the majority, or even a significant portion of the pro-life community. Aji de Gallina said that the idea that the ones who don’t care about children are *100% of the pro-life community *exists only in your head.
It’s not that they want to bring unwanted children into the world, it’s that they want to change the culture so that children are valued and wanted. Do I think it’s a naive position to take? Yes, I would say that it is. But it doesn’t meant that they don’t care about children.
Show me where I say they don’t exist, and you can call me a liar. I was answering what you said, which was:
(Bolding mine) Your implication here is that there is only one reason that a person might be for reducing funding to agencies that provide for the health of lower-income children, and that the one reason is that they don’t care about children. I was merely pointing out that there could be many reasons, and that not caring about children is only one of these reasons.
You are right, sorry! I did mis-read your post.
Magiver’s cite shows that they are, in some places, prosecuting for maternal drug use and that, “In Indiana and many other states, the positive [drug] test at delivery of the child requires notification to the Department of Public Welfare under mandatory child abuse reporting laws.” The slope ain’t just slippery, we’re halfway down it and no one but a few drug addicted mothers noticed.
There are really two questions in the OP:
-
Will miscarriages be investigated as murders?
-
Will women be monitored to ensure that they are safe “incubators” for developing fetuses?
I think it #1 is reaching quite a bit. There’s no way we would even have the resources to do such investigating, even if we wanted to.
In regards to #2, you are right that this is already happening to some degree. But I still don’t understand why anyone thinks the slope will be MORE slippery than the one where they are scrutinizing how we treat our kids who are already born. If a mother was giving her 5-year-old alcohol or drugs, she would be prosecuted for that, right? That’s still a long, long way from the government monitoring kids’ diet or exercise plans.
Well, because with abortion as a legal alternative, we can’t know whether her behavior will affect an eventually born child, or if she’ll terminate the pregnancy before birth. So it’s only when we have a born child that we’re interested in what happened to it while the mother was pregnant. Expand that scope, prohibit abortion, and now you’re looking at either “treating” or “prosecuting” (depending on who you ask) a lot more women for a lot more offenses.
In effect, we may slide so far down the slope that (as in some Fundamentalist nations, and as suggested in our own country within the past 15 years) all women are considered “pre-pregnant” and restricted from doing *anything *potentially hazardous to potential fetuses, whether they intend to breed or not.
Let’s think about how we’d go about the discovery of it, though. An observer can’t tell a woman is pregnant until she’s at least 4 months along, and usually longer. By the time we can tell that it’s a pregnant woman abusing drugs or alcohol, I think a safe guess could be made that her intention is to follow through with the pregnancy, anyway. And either which way, if a woman is pregnant and abusing drugs and alcohol, don’t you think it’s probably a good idea to make her get some help?
Again, I don’t see the logic for why this will be any more likely to happen than monitoring of school children to ensure that they are eating all their fruits and vegetables.
Oh, I’m not sure it’s *more *likely. I actually think both are quite likely - it seems we’re getting nosier and nosier about what used to be considered “family business”. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, as forensics and health testing becomes better and better, children of all ages, from unborn to 18, are monitored and their parents held liable for their optimum, not minimum, health.
Why do I think this? I’ve had a LOT of people’s noses in my business since Caileigh was born. I had to fight off a bunch of well-meaning folks at Early Intervention who really wanted me to enroll her in preschool at age 3, even though they all admitted she didn’t need any extra help and I was more than capable of meeting her educational and social needs at home. Our doctor was required by state law to report us to Child Services because she didn’t gain enough weight between her second and third birthdays, even though we all agree it’s due to a combination of her prematurity and gluten intolerance, and she’s doing fabulously otherwise. She’s doing just f*ing fine, and no one doubts my ability as a mother, and yet they’re still trying to tell me what I should be doing for her. I can only imagine the pressure they’re putting on uncertain, inexperienced or uneducated mothers.
That, I do not disagree with you about, at all. This early preschool thing is really annoying. When my daughter was 3, she started going to preschool 2 days a week, and stayed at her regular in-home daycare the other days. The immediate pressure I got to put her in pre-school full-time was unbelieveable to me (from all kinds of people). I ended up putting her in preschool full-time mid year, last year, but that was due to her personality and having trouble adjusting to different routines. If she were a more easygoing child, I see NO reason she would be better off in preschool full time at such a young age. I am completely against mandatory pre-school, and even mandatory kindergarten, and I do think that’s where we are headed.
Dang…somehow, half my post got eaten.
The other thing I wanted to say was that I am, as I think you know, WhyNot, generally against the government getting involved in parental decsion making. When I made the decision with my daughter’s pre-school, it was based on my knowledge of her, and what I thought would be best for her, individually. The government can’t know where she is in terms of development, and they can’t know how comfortable she will be in a classroom environment, and whether or not she’s ready for it.
On the other hand, I do believe that there are certain situations when intervention is called for, and that’s regardless of whether the child is born or not yet born (regardless of the legality of abortion).