From the community. The state, the country.
If we start limiting childbearing to only those who are able to raise a child entirely on their own, we are going to die out within a generation.
Crisis pregnancy centers (as differentiated from women’s health centers like Planned Parenthood etc) give out emergency contraception about as often as Nigerian princes give out large portions of their father’s fortunes.
Why would you make such a statement about me? It doesn’t follow from my statement - Hint it is not about me.
And for that matter the anti-abortion side, well some of them, would not say it’s punishment, but personal just taking responsibility for one’s actions and choices - like any member of humanity should. They are all for personal choice, but all for personal responsibility for the choice they make.
It seems to me that a logical extension of heartbeat laws would be including an ‘Are you pregnant’ question on the census. We need to make sure that fetal citizens are counted!
Why not? The fetus has rights. The woman has rights. The woman is culpable for the predicament of the fetus (ideally 50% culpable). The fetus’s rights trump the woman’s rights.
~Max
Under no circumstances does the state have the right to compel you to any medical procedures. Maybe if you are a convicted felon or they have a bona fide belief that said medical procedures are necessary for your own survival.
But if you are directly responsible for the third person’s lack of an organ or blood or bone marrow, and said person dies, the state can certainly prosecute you.
~Max
Do you have a cite for this? It is my understanding that most of human history was spent in multi-generational households, or familles patriarcales as Le Play called them.
~Max
I’m not particularly well informed but to me Planned Parenthood is the organization of choice. When I adopt the anti-abortion position, I still have to admit that they do many good things. The UN Population Fund comes in distant second.
~Max
Haven’t read it, I’m sorry.
~Max
Does the same idea apply to husbands and live-in boyfriends and who rape and beat the the women they live with? Nobody should have the right to use your body without your permission.
If the fetus is a product of rape the woman is not culpable for the predicament of the fetus, so the logic stops there. And rape is also a crime in and of itself.
~Max
If you give birth to or father a child who is born missing an organ or with organs that fail during childhood, the state most certainly does not currently prosecute you; the state does not even currently require you to donate blood or organs or bone marrow. Most parents will donate if they can, of course; but it’s not a legal requirement, and there are often good reasons why they can’t.
If you are saying that parents grieving for their dying child should on top of everything else be prosecuted because the child is dying, I think that’s a reprehensible position.
Are you asking about two parent households versus single parent households or versus multi generational housing?
I would agree, that is a reprehensible position. When I do take the anti-abortion position, I don’t criminalize ordinary negligence or processes of nature. If the child is born missing an organ, it does not follow that the parents are criminally responsible for the defect. The parents could easily have been expecting or wanting a healthy child, and did not necessarily know about a potential defect before having sex.
Then there are hypothetical cases where the parents do know about a likely defect before having sex. If a prosecutor thinks he can convince a jury that there wasn’t a reasonable chance of a potential child surviving*, and the parents knew that before having sex**, and the parents did not take reasonable steps to prevent conception***, then I might charge the parents for gross negligence. I would also put in a provision where the family can ask that the case be sealed.
*determined by a doctor
**the parents were told by the doctor and so much was noted in their medical record
***contraception or abortion
~Max
I must have misread you before, I was thinking you wrote “it is well known that children do much best in two parent households” where you clearly wrote “better”. Apologies.
But for curiosity’s sake, do you have a cite that children do better in single-parent households than two-parent households? I’m afraid that correlation may be just a correlation - having one parent leave does not necessarily cause the child to do “worse”.
~Max
That is your assertion, but you have yet to have given a reason as to why I should agree to that assertion.
A fetus has the rights that are granted to it by its mother, no more, no less.
By denying them access to my bone marrow, I am directly responsible for their lack of bone marrow.
Based on what criteria?
And this means that couples that are “trying” to get pregnant had better damn well cut that shit out.
I’m representing my own opinion in this thread, unless stated otherwise, so the criteria used by the doctor would be entirely up to the doctor, based on guidelines set forth by the state board of medical directors or, better yet, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Notably, the doctor’s opinion is not subject to review by jury except in the most extreme cases where he has already been expelled by his peers on the state medical board. In that case the jury determines whether the doctor broke a law, not whether his medical judgement was sound.
ETA: Actually I could say the same thing as an anti-abortion advocate.
~Max
A child (already birthed) does not normally require bone marrow transfusions, whereas a fetus normally requires the cooperation of its mother’s body.
I think breastfeeding is another comparison. Although the displeasure before breastfeeding pales in comparison to pregnancy before birth, the principle is the same if a fetus has rights. Either the mother provides her own milk or she finds another way to get nutrients to the kid, or the state charges her with gross negligence for letting the kid starve. The comparison breaks down a little in magnitude and also because the state can step in and take custody of an infant, while this is less feasible (impossible) for a fetus.
~Max
It breaks down considerably more than “a little in magnitude”, and doesn’t compare at all.
For one, if we’re talking about breastfeeding, there is another way to get nutrients to the kid.
For two, the fact that somebody else (whether or not it’s the state) can take custody of an infant isn’t “a little” difference. It’s a huge difference.