« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Arkansas

By: DigSpace in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 22 Mar 13 7:17 AM | 59 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 12987 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 12986 by Cactus Flower)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

certainly a perfectly sensible position and indeed the entire matter is one of , When does the state intrude?

A considerable majority feels the state should stand down in extreme circumstances, e.g incestual rape of a minor with a fetus with known severe defects and a mother significantly at health risk. using this all of the above wrapped up into one individual a massive majority (85% or more) thinks the state should stand down.

As one whittles away at this laundry list of often offered exceptions (rape, incest, harm to mother, fatal birth defects etc) the public view and the number of folks asking for state intrusion increases.

I don't know if I am to make an exception for an illiterate uninformed minor, a caged victum of human trafficking and so on. My personal opinion would likely vary considerably on a case by case basis, and vary considerable on a case by case basis at say week 13 as much as it would vary on week 11.

That is the conundrum to me, and given the disproportional burden placed on one gender, I am inclined to error on the side of the mother, not the fetus.

But I certainly appreciate different views. If I am to imbue the fetus with these rights, then all of these oft mentioned exceptions are not relevant ... rape, incest, harms to mother, abduction, unlawful imprisonment, torture etc ... it the fetus has these rights then the mother is not relevant. I won't go there.

Children have such rights. If the mother is wicked deranged or abusive or incompetant, the state intervenes. The reasons for maternal unsuitability are not relevant, nothing is except the well being of the child. All else is dismissed. That, to me, is what affording these rights do. I am inclined to error towards that which I believe "is" over that which I believe "might be".

But it is not a slam dunk. I'm inclined to want to see massive improvement in state services prior to state intrusion. The state needs to earn its intrusion, otherwise I fall into the camp of "they only seem to care about them up until the moment they are born".

In a better world with a better state I would likely shrink the window of permissibility. It is a touch call though.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Arkansas
By: Cactus Flower
in ALEA
Fri, 22 Mar 13 5:29 AM
Msg. 12986 of 54959

hi dig,

i am not keen on any of the measures on the pregnancy side. it kinda makes me want morally to vomit to think along those lines.

so i prefer to think "how long is necessary to make a decision?" while taking care to be clearly outside the zone of sentience, at least.

i think a responsible, sexually-active person may take a pregnancy test in the bathroom and then have some time and make their choice within 12 weeks. since the science exists for this test and it seems reliable, i don't think that is too much for society to require against the sensitivities surrounding the choice.

i don't accept the position which some seem to take that it is only appropriate to consider the rights of the mother. at some point the state intrudes. tome it makes sense to exercise caution in favour of the foetus.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next