For pro-life crowd: If fetus's life needs to be protected what about it's health?

Question

OK I am not looking for if abortion is right/wrong/legal...whatever. This is not about abortion.

**Let's assume abortion is illegal**

Now the main idea is that this is a right to life and the mother cannot abort because it is no longer just her body but the baby's too.

If that is the case then where do we draw the line?

If the fetus must be protected by such a law then do we not also have to make laws mandating that pregnant women eat certain things, take vitamins, etc?

Shouldn't the health of the fetus come before the woman's right to do activities that could endanger the baby?

Shouldn't then we legislate as well restrictions on pregnant women's usual freedoms in order to promote fetus health?

**I am not trying to advocate anything. I am just curious if it is only the life that is guarenteed and the mother can legally smoke, drink etc or if pregnant women should be required to live by a government mandated standerd in order to make sure the fetus is born healthy*

Answer 1

It's alarming that some answerers actually believe that illegalizing drinking/smoking by pregnant women is a good idea.  It's an indication of two things: 1) citizens can no longer take care of themselves without government regulations 2) we have lost our moral standard.

It's a sad state of affairs when women across the country smoke and drink while pregnant.  It shows complete ignorance to her offspring.  There is almost no way to protect the child from such women. Perhaps you can illegalize smoing and drinking, but with such disregard, these women would most likely smoke when the child is an infant, leave the child unattended, and probably feed it chips and junk food.

Your question is perfect phrased: where do we draw the line?

I can only say you can not let the government regulate how you raise your kid (even as a fetus).  However, the line SHOULD be drawn at abortion (i.e. that abortion does need to be regulated).

It's a totally different matter between killing a child versus mistreating the child.

I don't advocate abortion but there are cases where rape victims are impregnanted, where I think deserve a chance to not spend their lives living with a reminience of the terror.

[Edit]

Response to your new comment.

The reason I think abortion should be allowed in some cases (e.g. rape) does not rely on the premise that 'killing a baby is wrong'.  There are one thing that needs to be carefully defined, and that is when is a fetus morally considered a baby/a life.

I personally think it's not an immediate process, perhaps days/weeks?  You'll have to consult an OBGYN.  However, that's why that part needs to be regulated.  But yes, it is hard to draw a strict line that defines x number of days to divide homicide, and abortion.

The only reason I said it's okay in some extreme cases like rape, but not okay in general is because I don't want this to become a method of birth control, morally ok or not.  I do believe women should take precaution and not rely on this method, even if it's morally/legally acceptable in my standard.

Answer 2

You bring up a valid point.

If it was just the body and life of the mother at stake, I would say she should be able to do anything legal she wants to; smoke, drink alcohol, etc.

But, since it's "not her body" anymore, I think pregnant women who smoke and/or drink and/or do drugs should be charged with child endangerment and forced to be supervised by health officials for the remainder of her term.

And no abortions allowed to get out of it!

Answer 3

I understand where you are coming from but I do not think that it would be the governments responsibility to regulate what the mother eats or drinks (With maybe the exception of the intake of drugs and alcohol).  First off, I think you are talking about two very different things.  Let me explain.  

Abortion is intentional taking away the life of the fetus.  You kill it.

What you choose to eat or drink (junk food, alcohol, etc...) does have an effect on the fetus, generally it is not your intention to harm or kill the fetus.  

Now assume that abortion is illegal.  Where as abortion would be considered murder, at most if the baby was killed due to what the mother ate and drank (and you would have to be able to prove this), it would be considered manslaughter as long as it was unintentional.  (*Edit* As another person pointed out, if it damaged the health of the child without killing it, it could be considered endangerment of a child).  If you could prove that the mother was intentionally trying to kill the fetus, then it would again be murder.  It would be very hard to prove either of these situations.

Secondly, this would be nearly impossible for the government to regulate.  The amount of money it would take to ensure that something of this nature occured would be astronomical.

Finally, if you establish that a fetus is a person, then you have as much responsibility to it as you do any minor for which you are responsible.  The government doesn't regulate what your children eat or how much soda they drink in a day and neither would they be able to regulate what you consumed during pregnancy.

*On a side note, this is related to an argument against universal health insurance.  If I am in perfect health because I take care of my body, why should I pay for someone's liver or lung transplant because they are an alcoholic or smoke a pack a cigarettes a day?  You could then make an argument that in order for it to be fair, government would have to regulate individuals health.  Just something to think about.

Answer 4

There is a difference between being unhealthy and killing someone, but you're right.  In reality, they can still be killed anyway, just more slowly.

Answer 5

In my humble (and probably unpopular) opinion an expectant mother has a responsibility to provide first class prenatal care to her baby.  This includes regular doctor visits, proper nutrition, not using harmful substances, and not having a "doctor" suck the baby out of the womb thereby destroying it's life.

But hey, that's just me.

I see what you are getting at.  I don't think the government should regulate a woman's day to day habits for any reason.  For starters it would not be practical at all and virtually impossible to enforce.  Plus it would require HUGE amounts of funding and yet another Federal Agency.

Answer 6

I think this question proves exactly why abortion should stay legal, because there is no obvious line.

If you force women to follow certain guidelines during their pregnancy, you turn them into baby-making factories without rights or any sort of personal power or freedom.

I agree with the first commenter in that every woman should want to take care of her unborn child, but if we force them, we've protected a baby and invalidated an adult.

It's also scary to think of how the government would enforce this policy. I'm picturing locked wards in hospitals so they can control exactly what substances the women are exposed to.  

Answer 7

Personal responibility,

if a woman wants to be a w***e then her kids are her responsibility,  she should have picked a man who would at least try to take care of here.

45 million dead babies since Roe V Wade more dead than living in Iraq.

Answer 8

The argument is not only about the body being shared by both the baby and the mother, it is also about the sanctity and dignity of the human life. Because of the sanctity and dignity of the human person everyone had the right to life. That right to life begins at the moment of conception and goes all the way up to a natural death.

Our whole system of government has been built upon the foundations of ever persons right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" (babies in the womb included-although some loose constructionists may beg to differ) but it was never stated exactly how one should do so. We do however have guidelines as to how to run our government and how much power it should have. From the opinion of a strict construstionist, the government does not have the power to impose specific laws on pregnant individuals. When we begin to give that power to the government it will only be the beginning of a government that controls our every move. So... women should not be required to live by a government mandated standard

Answer 9

I agree with your concept.  However, who will monitor this?  And what would be the punishment?  Throw pregnant women in jail because they drink or smoke?  I have a better Idea.  Any women that gets an abortion should have to have a signed consent form saying it is okay from the father of the child and both sets of grand parents.  And if they do get an abortion, they also receive a hysterectomy.   Using abortion as a form of birth control needs to stop.