There is no right to have an abortion

Who is harming babies ? What on earth are you talking about ?

 

I don't think it is so far fetched. Wait and see. I predict some scandal with a Mengele type doctor, probably on some island or third world country somewhere first, within 25-50 years. We will need laws protecting against fetal research (if we don't already). And those laws couldn't be based on anything but the fetus being a person. It doesn't make sense to make a law that says one can't harm a clump of cells.

 

Of course it does. If those clump of cells have the potential to someday become a person.

 

Google it and you will find dozens of doctors and hospital administrators who say there is an explosion of babies being born addicted to drugs, and with other serious problems related to maternal drug use. It is a problem that is causing much suffering, and absolutely nothing is being done about it.

 

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/baby-opioids/

Right here. Live babies. Harmed. Harmed while they were a fetus.

 

Not sure what that has to do with abortion except these women should have aborted the addicted babies. They have that right.

Yes, something is being done about it. The doctors care for the babies like any other patient.


But jailing addicts hasn't worked. Maybe you should contribute to entities that help addicts get clean.

 

I wouldn't call my body while it was in my mother's womb as my potential person. It was me; it was my person.

 

I'm in the trenches every day talking about pregnant women doing drugs, and how it is wrong. But I have a competing narrative, backed up by the law, that says the woman has bodily autonomy during pregnancy. It kind of diminishes my case...

 

You would be suing for an act that occurred against a non-person. If I were the defense, I would point out that this doctor can scrape the fetus out of the womb, but my client can do such and such to it?

 

Rephrase: Absolutely nothing is being done to prevent it.

 

The law can certainly punish people for intentional harm without considering the fetus a person. There are many laws against destruction of property. There are even laws especially written to increase the punishment against a person who harms a pregnant woman (and deliberately or incidentally does harm to the fetus).

If a pregnant woman is choosing recreational drugs over the health of the fetus, it sounds like she does not really want a baby. Are you, perhaps, counseling these women in an environment where they are not allowed to consider abortion as an option?

 

It is relevant to abortion for my purposes. I think that the reason that pro-lifers cannot convince half the population that abortion is wrong is because we cannot show the victims. They are never seen or heard from. But we can see the victims of drug use while in the womb. When people see the victims, they are much more likely to say, "That's wrong". And if that's wrong, then so is killing it.

 

No, it doesn't. Anyone can campaign against drug use during pregnancy. It starts with the drug user being convinced to seek help.

. But if you're coming at it from a position of "punish women who use drugs during pregnancy" then I can see where you'd get resistance...

 

Women who don't want the baby will not get an abortion, even if the PP is right next door, for many of the same reasons people won't go get a physical. They just don't get around to doing it.

 

What would you like done? Drug tests for every pregnant woman?

 

And you don't see how half the country, and the law, stating the fetus is not even a person, just might make that "convincing" a little more difficult?

 

There are already drug tests for pregnant women. If positive, the state will attempt, and most likely succeed, in taking your kid. But there are no legal consequences whatsoever for putting a baby through months of suffering, permanent injuries in many cases, permanent behavioral problems, and sometimes death. Only custody consequences. Nothing is being done to actually prevent what is going on.

 

I thought that was clear by now: recognize that there is a person in there. That's the first step.

 

And all along I thought we were having a discussion about abortion ... Silly me !

 

It is about abortion. Both acts are committed against the fetus. If it's wrong to assault a fetus, then it must be wrong to kill it. It is as simple as that. The only difference is that in the former case, people see the victims, and in the latter, they do not.

 

There are no mandatory drug tests required of pregnant women in this country.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no need to recognize the fetus as a person. We could make it a crime to harm a potential person. There are already crimes on the books relating to non persons (animal abuse). Problem solved.

- - - Updated - - -

It is wrong to assault a dog but not wrong to kill it if done appropriately.

 

That's rather convoluted but.....

if a fetus is being damaged all the more reason to abort it.


Uh, people already know illegal drug use is wrong.

 

Abortion and illegal drug use are two different issues.

If a fetus is damaged by drug use (LEGAL or illegal) then all the more reason to abort it.


It starts with the drug user being convinced to seek help. Note: Not a pregnant drug user, a drug user.

 

Your lawsuit would be addressing the proven effect on the newborn (just like a malpractice lawsuit against a doctor who comes in drunk and makes a careless mistake that we learn, at birth, affected the newborn). Your premise is that the woman does not WANT an abortion, so there is no precedent for confusing an abortion procedure for whatever harmful experiment your evil doctor was performing on the fetus which has now been born with some intentionally caused defect. The law can cover this without making abortions illegal and without pretending that the fetus is a sentient human being.