View Single Post
Old August 20th, 2013 (4:49 AM).
Entermaid's Avatar
Entermaid Entermaid is offline
    Join Date: Jan 2013
    Location: The States
    Gender: Other
    Nature: Adamant
    Posts: 2,148
    meh, this can of worms has been opened several times on here.

    I would qualify what you mean by "any circumstances".

    Does a woman in her third trimester have, or should have the right to abort the fetus? Since you have stated it's not legitimate life until after birth rather than the viability period which is after the fetus has developed to a certain stage.

    Another legal concern is moderate to heavy drinking of alcoholic substances (not the occasional glass of wine with dinner) in pregnant women. There are no laws that prohibit pregnant women from drinking, though there may be some state laws I am not aware of outside of my state. If a woman plans on having the baby, then it's not only her body that she is affecting with the alcoholic substance and illicit drugs (prescription drug abuse). Though some would argue that, as individuals, we should be allowed to make our own personal choices regarding our bodies, some of our choices affect others' rights. If a woman has decided to carryout the pregnancy, and by the viability period, she must carry the it to term, there should be safeguards for the conduct aforementioned.

    Not only do some drugs and alcoholic beverages affect the child during development, the government and taxpayers are then burdened by the poor decision in financing the medical care for the child that could have otherwise been avoided without the poor "personal" choices the mother had made about her own body. Women should not have the right, in all cases to make decisions that affect their own body, especially when these choices have negative impacts on other people.

    Beyond the viability period, the point of no return, as well as a need for restrictions of risky health behaviors aforementioned, abortions should almost always be permitted for financial reasons alone. Abortions save the state so much money each year that would have otherwise been allocated as entitlements to those who don't have the financial means to provide for the child, entitlements that could cost the state for 17 additional years per child.

    An interesting policy to consider is sterilization of men and women who have multiple children without any sort of way of financing for the childrens' needs. How and should we regulate how many children people are having? Or if their children have been taken out of their home, should these individuals be allowed to have more children? I can see how restricting reproductive rights to those who are not law abiding citizens or have more children then they can support financially could be justifiably limited as those decisions, again, affect more than just the individual; the decisions affect their children and the taxpayers when they make these poor judgments.

    This issue should be tackled with state interests and the general welfare of the state rather than arbitrary rights such as reproductive rights for the sake of reproductive rights. It is usually the case though that these rights match-up with state interests in aspects of abortion. Though, as mentioned, these arbitrary rights should not be the dominant discourse when personal choices of one's reproductive health negatively affects the general welfare.
    #Team Popplio & Brionne
    Reply With Quote