Would you support a 'rape exception' to a government ban on elective abortions?

Ikari said:

I don't think monitoring is necessary, less there is real reason to believe that the woman may act in manners which would endanger the child and that can be proven in a court of law in order to obtain a warrant.

But of course it's a human being. Human is human.

Click to expand...

How would you know which women are likely to do this? Should the role of child protective services be expanded to monitor pregnant women?

Catz Part Deux said:

How would you know which women are likely to do this? Should the role of child protective services be expanded to monitor pregnant women?

Click to expand...

Less there is some criminal record which would be related (DUI, drug arrest, etc.) you wouldn't know.

Ikari said:

Less there is some criminal record which would be related (DUI, drug arrest, etc.) you wouldn't know.

Click to expand...

So, how far are you willing to go to protect the rights of the unborn?

Sorry, should've read first.

Under the scenario given where personhood is 100% legally established then I would say the only time an exception should be made is legitimate threat to the mothers life.

I voted immedietely (within days) in a general sense of if abortion was simply made illegal, based on the understanding that there is no definitive, scientific, way in any way shape or form to delcare one particular moment the beginning of life because that declaration is completley opinion, so if it was made illegal I would be in favor of of the rape exclusion if reported within a few days based on the nebulous definition of "life" and the rape tilting it in the favor of the mother.

Catz Part Deux said:

So, how far are you willing to go to protect the rights of the unborn?

Click to expand...

I imagine not that much farther then he'd be willing to go to protect the rights of the born. I would imagine that Ikari isn't big into Child Services based on him being a rather staunch libertarian but I may be wrong. That said, if you really wanted to do monitoring of some kind, I would imagine it'd follow much the same path that Child Services does now with it falling on them to do it. Essentially direct monitoring isn't done, but if there's reports of abuse they would check it out and investigate the situation.

Ikari said:

I don't think monitoring is necessary, less there is real reason to believe that the woman may act in manners which would endanger the child and that can be proven in a court of law in order to obtain a warrant.

But of course it's a human being. Human is human.

Click to expand...

For clarification, would a woman be legally obliged to state that she is pregnant so she could be monitored for abuse of the human inside her? If not, what would stop her from "attending" to the problem herself?

Catz Part Deux said:

So, how far are you willing to go to protect the rights of the unborn?

Click to expand...

As I said, if it could be proven in a court of law for a warrant sure. But that's that. You're not going to catch everything and even if you make certain things illegal, it won't always stop the behavior. You may not know until it is too late, but without the ability of foresight, it's pretty tough to police the future.

Laila said:

For clarification, would a woman be legally obliged to state that she is pregnant so she could be monitored for abuse of the human inside her?

Click to expand...

No

Laila said:

If not, what would stop her from "attending" to the problem herself?

Click to expand...

Nothing...well maybe conscience and high probability of damage.

Ikari said:

As I said, if it could be proven in a court of law for a warrant sure. But that's that. You're not going to catch everything and even if you make certain things illegal, it won't always stop the behavior. You may not know until it is too late, but without the ability of foresight, it's pretty tough to police the future.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe we should set up a hotline like we do with child abuse so neighbors can report their neighbors or friends for drinking/smoking/getting high while pregnant. How far would we go? Certain STDs can also be harmful to the fetus, so clearly we'd have to prohibit promiscuous sex by the mother. Should she be allowed to work? Or would she have to submit a doctor's note to state that working is allowed?

The problem with the abortion debate isn't in the theoretical realm. It's in the practical realm. Once we extend/recognize the natural rights of the fetus, it sets all kinds of other enforcement action into place to ensure that the fetus is given the proper protection it deserves under the law.

The fact of the matter is that some women have ALWAYS self-selected infanticide, either before or after birth. If we outlaw abortion, we must set up a mechanism by which we then prosecute any attempt to harm a fetus.

Do you really want to go there? I mean, it's not as if our current child protective mechanisms have been a wild success...

I mean, we're leaving the realm of philosophical question and more now into a discussion on mechanics should such a thing be in place. If we're still going by the unborn child being recognized as full human life; then some of what you say would have to be implemented. The practical outcome is not a whole lot of monitoring or things of that nature. Mostly, unless warrant can be obtained, it would be as most things are now; punishment once the crime is committed and found out. Murder is illegal in the country, but we don't monitor everyone because everyone has the ability to murder. If there is a murder, we have police investigate it and try to find the guilty party.

Ikari said:

No

Nothing...well maybe conscience and high probability of damage.

Click to expand...

Ah but with things like abortion pills available, which make abortion less risky. Would this then mean the banning and outlaw of certain medicines/products which can induce miscarriages?

Laila said:

Ah but with things like abortion pills available, which make abortion less risky. Would this then mean the banning and outlaw of certain medicines/products which can induce miscarriages?

Click to expand...

In the context of the hypothetical, yes I would say those would definitely be outlawed.

Ikari said:

Mostly, unless warrant can be obtained, it would be as most things are now; punishment once the crime is committed and found out. Murder is illegal in the country, but we don't monitor everyone because everyone has the ability to murder. If there is a murder, we have police investigate it and try to find the guilty party.

Click to expand...

Wrong. A child protective services investigation is launched on a report basis. That means that if a child is endangered in the womb, we would likely follow our current protocols. In point of fact, a child protective investigation operates with a "guilty until proven innocent" premise because the responsibility to the child is primary. That's where this would go, if we took the theoretical premise you've endorsed into the real world. The fetus would be incapable of testifying and thus, we would rely on outside reports of harm.

Catz Part Deux said:

Well, maybe we should set up a hotline like we do with child abuse so neighbors can report their neighbors or friends for drinking/smoking/getting high while pregnant. How far would we go? Certain STDs can also be harmful to the fetus, so clearly we'd have to prohibit promiscuous sex by the mother. Should she be allowed to work? Or would she have to submit a doctor's note to state that working is allowed?

Click to expand...

Yes, this all gets ridiculously tricky when you're clearly reaching and trying to say things that are relatively common sense when compared to a current situation but would not give you ammunition for your rhetoric.

For example...

Why would you need a way to report potential abuse any different than what's currently there with Child Protective Services. If you see your neighbor drinking nightly and screaming at his kids you can report it. What's different about seeing them down a bottle of jack while 8 months pregnant?

Working could theoritically dangerous to children who are born because that can cause stress on the mother and takes time away from the children thus possibly making her less likely to be alert to a potential danger such as a kid falling in the pool otu back. Yet we don't require doctors notes to allow women to work then. At most, you could potentially look at a law requiring pregnancy time off to be given after "X" amount of months but even that wouldn't be entirely needed and its not like there isn't laws in place now to allow pregnant wome nto take time off when/if need be.

Further the attempt to compare these things to that of abortion is ludicrous in and of itself. There is a large difference between taking actions that may potentially, in some cases in a VERY off shot (like promiscuous sex), and takin an action that is 100%, without question, damaging to the fetus.

We don't actively monitor or have extremely detailed laws about a LOT of things that can harm, do damage, or even lead to the deaths of our BORN children. Outside of beating your children or actually killing them most of it is based on reports and then investigations into mistreatment. The general assumption with the government dealing with Children is that you're going to be taking care of them unless there is reason present to make the government believe otherwise. Actively going to a clinic and saying "Give me an abortion" would be such type of a reason in this hypothetical. Your neighbor seeing you punching your stomach and downing a fifth of jack and calling in would be a reason. Simply being pregnant is not a reason for the Government to actively believe you're going to mistreat the child anymore than simply having a born child is reason for the government to actively believe it.

The practical realm only presents this big of a problem is if you refuse to be anything but obtsue about the situation and apply simple logic and common sense that much of the same rules that apply to children now could apply then. Abortion would be much like the current laws now which, you know, say you can't go and chop your kids head off.

There would be no reason to extend them greater protection than is afforded other children in this hypothetical situation.

Catz Part Deux said:

Wrong. A child protective services investigation is launched on a report basis. That means that if a child is endangered in the womb, we would likely follow our current protocols. In point of fact, a child protective investigation operates with a "guilty until proven innocent" premise because the responsibility to the child is primary. That's where this would go, if we took the theoretical premise you've endorsed into the real world. The fetus would be incapable of testifying and thus, we would rely on outside reports of harm.

Click to expand...

Well you're starting to mix an idealization with reality. If we were going by my idealization of government; things would not be the same at all. I can't say I'm 100% down with the current use of government force and child services. Sure there is legitimate means to it, but it oft is ineffective. I would probably be more inclined to handle it much like any other crime.

Catz Part Deux said:

Wrong. A child protective services investigation is launched on a report basis. That means that if a child is endangered in the womb, we would likely follow our current protocols. In point of fact, a child protective investigation operates with a "guilty until proven innocent" premise because the responsibility to the child is primary. That's where this would go, if we took the theoretical premise you've endorsed into the real world. The fetus would be incapable of testifying and thus, we would rely on outside reports of harm.

Click to expand...

And a child is usually removed from the environment it is in to ensure its safety. How could the child services monitor the safety of the foetus when it is trapped inside the women who has been deemed unfit? Clearly the woman would have to be moved to some sort of hospital-type setting so she could be monitored 24/7

Ikari said:

In the context of the hypothetical, yes I would say those would definitely be outlawed.

Click to expand...

And judging US's record in relations to drugs, such a law would fail ultimately.

Thank you for addressing one of the actual issues that would have to be different. You're right, they couldn't remove the children, instead they'd have to remove the mother. A hospital type situation would likely be the scenario that would have to happen, which is rather unfortunante, but so too is it unfortunate that children are taken out of their home and placed in completely alien environments to them as well. We're not going to find HAPPY thoughts or things that we have to do when it comes to abuse of children regardless of them being born or unborn.

Laila said:

And judging US's record in relations to drugs, such a law would fail ultimately.

Click to expand...

That would be the reality of the situation. I mean, it would have some effect. We don't have legalized pot, and sure a lot of people smoke it; but it does stop some percentage of people from doing it. However, it can't stop it in total. In the context of they hypothetical wherein these sorts of drugs would constitute a form of murder and are illegal, there would most likely be a black market which arises to supply the drugs.

Zyphlin said:

Thank you for addressing one of the actual issues that would have to be different. You're right, they couldn't remove the children, instead they'd have to remove the mother. A hospital type situation would likely be the scenario that would have to happen, which is rather unfortunante, but so too is it unfortunate that children are taken out of their home and placed in completely alien environments to them as well. We're not going to find HAPPY thoughts or things that we have to do when it comes to abuse of children regardless of them being born or unborn.

Click to expand...

Well it seemed pretty obvious, the bills for such a endeavour would be ridiculously high. And say a woman is a 'repeat offender', what happens then?
And say during the last stages of pregnancy a problem occurs and (because this entire argument is on the premise a foetus is human and therefore open to protection) the Mother is in danger, who chooses which one survives? The doctor?

Ikari said:

No it's not. They've found something to live for, that something doesn't have to hinge upon better things coming. It may be hinged on family, it may be hinged on friends, it may be hinged on job, etc. Just because their life doesn't get better doesn't mean that they won't find worth in life. If what you said was true, there would be far more suicides than we have.

Click to expand...

If they found something to life for, than they are not in the position I described.

Ikari said:

Society doesn't mean that a man is not entitled to the sweat of his brow. We interact, which is why we've come to understand rights and why we construct government to protect it. But that doesn't mean that you all of a sudden do not get to reap the rewards of your labor. Your labor is still your labor, even in a society. And you are entitled compensation for your labor and to live by it.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree. Those interactions may help or hinder a man independently of his actions. Or they may help or hinder a man in a manner that may be amplified because of other actions within society. But the fact is that society is not a machine that dispenses out a set amount of benefit for a set amount of work. What you get out of what you do can greatly vary because both the individual and the rest of society have mutual input. Because of that shared input, society has a right to some of the output.

Politics101 said:

The poll should also include an 'exception' which allows abortion in medical cases where the mother's life is at risk.

Click to expand...

As that is a sperate though related matter,... we should go ahead and make that a poll question.

Do you want to post it?

megaprogman said:

If they found something to life for, than they are not in the position I described.

Click to expand...

I would say the only validation of your point you'd have is if the person commits suicide. And then it's validation only for that individual, not on the whole.

megaprogman said:

I completely disagree. Those interactions may help or hinder a man independently of his actions. Or they may help or hinder a man in a manner that may be amplified because of other actions within society. But the fact is that society is not a machine that dispenses out a set amount of benefit for a set amount of work. What you get out of what you do can greatly vary because both the individual and the rest of society have mutual input. Because of that shared input, society has a right to some of the output.

Click to expand...

There are things which can be accomplished through aggregation over a populace. Society can allow for specializations enough to allow all the people to contribute to pieces of the society and allow for greater advancement. Yet, none of this takes away from my labor or my right to live by my labor. You can't get my work for free...in fact my work specifically costs a lot of money. You cannot tell me legitimately that I am not entitled to the sweat of my brow because I live in a society. I may pay taxes, I may obey the law; but none of that takes away from my labor and my ability to get paid for it.

Ikari said:

I would say the only validation of your point you'd have is if the person commits suicide. And then it's validation only for that individual, not on the whole.

Click to expand...

I see your point in this. However this has nothing to do with unborn babies who are not yet fully alive.

Ikari said:

There are things which can be accomplished through aggregation over a populace. Society can allow for specializations enough to allow all the people to contribute to pieces of the society and allow for greater advancement. Yet, none of this takes away from my labor or my right to live by my labor. You can't get my work for free...in fact my work specifically costs a lot of money. You cannot tell me legitimately that I am not entitled to the sweat of my brow because I live in a society. I may pay taxes, I may obey the law; but none of that takes away from my labor and my ability to get paid for it.

Click to expand...

I disagree, because it means that the results of your labor are not completely yours. My conclusion is that it is rightful for you to get paid for your labor and it is rightful for society to take a portion in the form of taxes as well. I think both are true. As for the exact amount that is rightful, I am not sure since modeling it is probably more complex than trying to track the weather.

megaprogman said:

I see your point in this. However this has nothing to do with unborn babies who are not yet fully alive.

Click to expand...

It certainly does for the context of the hypothetical for this thread and is even more generalized elsewhere. Since one one of the given reasons for abortion was that the child's life will be less than perfect and thus is equivalent to death anyway.

Ikari said:

It certainly does for the context of the hypothetical for this thread and is even more generalized elsewhere. Since one one of the given reasons for abortion was that the child's life will be less than perfect and thus is equivalent to death anyway.

Click to expand...

That's kinda scary.