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

Re: Arkansas

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Fri, 22 Mar 13 8:43 AM | 63 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 12988 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 12987 by DigSpace)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

in my model, i try to avoid granular details re rights.

the aim is to provide a simple right to a choice during a time window; and to associate that choice with the responsibility to know your condition.

i am not sure why any woman with a normal pregnancy would need more time.

after that, i would allow only narrow exceptions for life of the mother and a small set of major birth defects. maybe a few other things.

i admit that i presume free choice is available for everyone. and so caged victims may have an issue. but that is more or less as likely to be a problem at 30 weeks as at 12.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Arkansas
By: DigSpace
in ALEA
Fri, 22 Mar 13 7:17 AM
Msg. 12987 of 54959

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.


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