If it’s Human Life at Conception, How will Miscarriages Be Handled?

I have never seen a discussion of how miscarriages will by handled by the legal system in a human life at conception world.  Let’s discuss it here.

Law enforcement will have the same obligation for the safety of the fetus as for others.  Since the fetus is 100% dependent on its mother, law enforcement will have go through the mother to provide services of the legal system to the fetus.

The doctor informs an upset woman, “My records show you had a child inside of you. Now, there is no child.  I’ll give you a quick physical, then I’ll pass this information on to law enforcement. I hope you did not tell any friend or relative you were depressed on learning you were pregnant.”

The police ask her if the $250,000 cost of raising the lost child  had concerned her? Can she provide evidence that what she claimed happened to the child is the truth?  ”The law requires us to find out what happened to missing children,” the officer explains. “We need corroberation on your story to be certain this was not a homicide.  Please list of people you might have talked to about your pregnancy.”

I don’t see how the safety of the fetus can be transferred from the mother’s responsibility to the state without substantial monitoring of the mother by the state. It seems unavoidable women will have to report to an official about anything related to the health/safety of the fetus.

The model of the probation officer would apply.

 

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to If it’s Human Life at Conception, How will Miscarriages Be Handled?

  1. entech says:

    Actually I think you are a little bit wrong there Jon. You see according to believers we are all God’s creatures, so the unborn baby human (don’t prevaricate with terms like fetus, tell it like it is) is also one of God’s precious little creatures and the mother is merely the agent through which it enters the world.
    In the event of a miscarriage the police should not be investigating the mother but rather …

    Sound a bit silly? just a natural extension to the way some people talk and believe.

  2. Henry says:

    Jon:“If it’s Human Life at Conception, How will Miscarriages Be Handled?”

    http://ndhealth.gov/vital/forms/58707.pdf

    • entech says:

      When I first saw this form, I thought there is Henry playing his little games again. The form looks a lot like the a cause of death during childbirth requirement.

      But when he started to use it as an argument against Jon the Atheist I have decide to ask for clarification from someone who might actually know.

  3. Michael Ross says:

    If a woman can legally terminate an unwanted pregnancy, how can she be jailed for unintentionally ending a wanted one?

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/buckhalter-mississippi-stillbirth-manslaughter

    With our wars of choice abroad and war against the unborn at home we have truly lost our way and are groping in the dark.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Michael 4:17 “..how can she be jailed for unintentionally ending a wanted one?”

      That’s addressing, exactly, the question. How would law enforcement know it was a “wanted one” unless they did an investigation? When there is a murder, today, law enforcement does not just accept at face value everyone’s explanation. For example, an ex wife is murdered by someone and the ex husband tells them, “I wouldn’t murder her. I loved her.”, the police would not take that statement as ruling out absolutely the ex husband. They would look further.

      That’s why they could not accept at face value the statement of a woman who said it was an involuntary miscarriage. Maybe she is lying. There was a death, the case could not be closed just on the mother’s self declaration on innocence.

    • entech says:

      Reading a couple of other links on that page it seems that being a woman is a misdemeanour all by itself.

      A woman becoming pregnant means she becomes a potential criminal and must be put under state custody.
      http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/study-women-denied-legal-rights-because-pregnancy

  4. Avatar of realist realist says:

    Another aspect of this would be making sure that women eat what they “should” while pregnant so that a child at birth would have had the optimum array of nutrients while in utero. No more Dorito or ice cream binges. Women could be required to prove that they didn’t have just popcorn for supper and that they drank their orange juice every morning. If you consider the fetus as having the right to be infused with the appropriate and government-determined levels of nutrients for proper development, then you must have some way of insuring that. Women have already been arrested for exposing their unborn children to illegal drugs, but what about just eating too much junk food? How about just rounding up all the pregnant women and incarcerating them so that they can be fed appropriately Of course people would rebel at that yet how long would it be before fetus protection laws were passed?

    • entech says:

      The Irish convents had the right idea, feed them properly and keep them healthy. The babies were being sold to the highest bidder, a healthy one would get a better price. Jonathon Swift would be proud of this this simple solution.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        entech 5:19 “The Irish convents had the right idea, feed them properly and keep them healthy. The babies were being sold to the highest bidder, a healthy one would get a better price.”

        When you think about it, Ireland, 1950′s and before, is quite like the proposed United States would be under human-life-at-conception. In those areas of Ireland under the thumb of the church, the government stepped back and let the church run things like its social policy. Fetus’ became a commodity, there for social control and the economic gain of the church.

        Humand-at-conception would shift the balance of social and economic power even more away from women, toward men and toward religious theories and religous impluses.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          I wish someone would take me to task for what I wrote in this blog. I was not trying to exaggerate. It just seems to me none of the right to life political advocates has thought through just how our laws against murder would apply to miscarriages.

          Now, I suppose laws could be passed which gave some kind of a pass to miscarriages that occurred in the privacy of a bathroom at home. But, of course, any ground given to miscarriages opens to door to some form of abortion, especially now that there are so many at-home options.

          I see a the same pattern emerging that happened with prohibition. Before prohibition, all media and public focus was on the problems that fall out from achohol. Job absenteeism, drunkedness, deaths from accidents, etc. So, there was this all encompassing simple solution, ban alchohol. Is was an example of, “If it looks OK, then it is OK.”

          After the ban was in effect, it became obvious it was not OK. One could say the crime organizations which sprung up during prohibition went on to do crime for a long time after that.

          That’s what I think is happening with abortion, “If it looks OK (banning all abortions), then is it OK.” All focus is on the theory that a fetus is human life. There is not focus on the important issue, what happens if abortion is banned?

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“I wish someone would take me to task for what I wrote in this blog.”

            I did. To answer your specific concern, the form that exists now would have to be filled out. Not a big deal. You are exagerating

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 5:32 “..the form that exists now would have to be filled out.”

            I couldn’t open that. But, you must be joking. A miscarriage today is not a human life. When it is, Katy bar the door.

          • Henry says:

            Jon, you are exaggerating. In your hypothetical, YOU are placing the burden of proof on the mother. That is not reality. If any malfeasance was suspected, the burden would be on the State with probable cause first needing to be met to begin any kind of investigation. Your hypothetical is not only an exaggeration, but also not reality of how our laws work.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 7:28 “That is not reality.”

            So, I’m trying to understand you here. You are saying, currently, murder suspects fill out a form denying they had any part in it and they are completely free from any further suspicion.

          • Henry says:

            Jon, let me remind you of your original question: “If it’s Human Life at Conception, How will Miscarriages Be Handled?”

            to which my response was, they will fill the form out that they have always filled out. Now, you are digressing to talk about murderers.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 7:48 “…they will fill the form out that they have always filled out.”

            Henry, let’s start with the reason women are required to fill out the current form. Somewhere, there is a law passed by the legislature which requires the form. The law fell under the responsibility of the Department of Health. If a law were passed making the fetus a human being, it seems to me its death would not fall exclusively under the Department of Health. When a human dies now, the Department of Health is not involved.

            Now, let’s say hypothetically, there is a miscarriage and someone calls the Police and says the mother did not want this baby, etc etc. Would the Police Department turn it over to the Department of Health? Do they turn over murder investigations now to the Department of Health?

            Now, I don’t know exactly what would happen. I’m just saying no one is talking about the implications to the mother/father of miscarriages if the fetus is a human being.

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“When a human dies now, the Department of Health is not involved.”

            Jon, not true. The DOH is involved in every single case of adult, child, and fetus death.

            Your original question is fully answered by the linked DOH form.

          • entech says:

            Jon, take a hypothetical case. In your part of the world the weather has been very cold and icy, a pregnant lady slips on the ice and fall down the steps in a public park and has a miscarriage. Taking this to the extreme someone must be charged, is it:
            the woman for being out and not staying home in bed to protect the child.
            the doctor who told her she should do some modest exercise, a daily walk, for the benefit of the child.
            the city for having the steps in such a place and not adequately signed and protected.
            or, perhaps, we could take a leaf from the insurance manual, God controls the weather, it was not an accident it was an act of God; who do we charge …

            Thinking back on some of the things I read in the run up to your last elections, the anti abortion supporters were against it in any circumstances , even incestuous rape would be God’s will. Taken to be as ridiculous as possible the “device of Onan” is a form of abortion, any means of preventing the zygote from being formed.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 12:04 re: woman slips on ice, miscarriage

            Actually, when I first wrote the blog I used an example of a woman falling down inside her home. If the doctor did not see evidence of a fall, hmmm. And, if police questioned her friends and learned she had expressed remorse at getting pregnant, hmmm again.

            But, in Henry’s world of, “If it looks OK, it is OK,” a health official would have the call on whether or not is was an abortion, the Police would never hear about the suspictions.

          • Henry says:

            Again, in Jon’s world no probable cause is necessary, and the women is presumed guilty until she proves herself innocent. That hypothetical is a departure from any sense of reality. The Jon model fails.

          • entech says:

            Still wondering about the actual use of Henry’s form.
            Doesn’t seem to have a place for the two hypotheticals to be reported.

            I think Jon is suggesting rather than having to prove innocence, why should there even be a potential charge.

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“Can she provide evidence that what she claimed happened to the child is the truth?”

        • entech says:

          Henry at 3:14 am
          This is an even more gross distortion by means of selective quoting than is normal even you.

          Did you find time to check the actual usage of the form? I would like to know if I misinterpreted all the conditions of birth requested and how they might apply to a 6 or 8 week miscarriage.

          • Henry says:

            You are now moving the goalpost, a common trick for you. Jon was very specific in speaking of a fetus, which my link addressed. You are asking about an embryo.

          • entech says:

            “If it’s Human Life at Conception, How will Miscarriages Be Handled”

            I have never seen a discussion of how miscarriages will by handled by the legal system in a human life at conception world. Let’s discuss it here. …

            According to the ever trustworthy Wikipedia
            A miscarriage is the natural death of an unborn human while it is still an embryo or fetus in its mother’s womb. Such a death takes place in the early stages of prenatal development prior to fetal viability

            Not moving any posts, they are far enough apart already. It is you that are trying to limit them.

            Still wondering about that form you mentioned.

          • Henry says:

            Form? The form as it is filled out now would have to be filled out. No big deal. I think you and Jon figured out how to create a tornado.

          • Henry says:

            entech:“It is you that are trying to limit them.”

            Absolutely. Why wouldn’t I? When Jon was very specific, and I crafted a specific response, why should I allow you to pull my response out of context to be used on a broader spectrum? You are just sore, again.

          • entech says:

            @ 7:48 pm
            “If it’s Human Life at Conception, How will Miscarriages Be Handled?”
            to which my response was, they will fill the form out that they have always filled out.

            It is clear to me, and I have asked for clarification, that the form is for reporting death during childbirth. Some questions do not and could not apply to a miscarriage, ie
            Date of delivery, time of delivery,Fetus weight. And so much more.

            Henry you have reached a new low. Do you know what you are talking about or just picking a fight for the sake of it. You have been picking some odd and unfortunate causes lately.

          • Henry says:

            Then the form as it is filled out now would have to be filled out. Why is this so complicated for you? Your muddling is failing you.

          • entech says:

            Are you saying that that form would apply to a miscarriage in early term caused by some natural factor?

            I am not muddling I am asking for an explanation, you are prevaricating. I am increasingly coming to the idea that you are wrong, you know you are wrong, your ego will not permit you to admit you are wrong.

          • Henry says:

            Not wrong on this issue. Jon has already claimed that honor early. My position has remained the same, that is nothing would need to change with Jon’s hypothetical. You are needlessly probing.

            Here is the current law:
            http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t12-1c17-1.pdf?20140221213049

            If Jon’s concern was valid, this law would already be placing women in legal jeopardy, even with the abortion exception within.

            You are making a mountain out of a molehill. I take that back. There is no molehill.

          • entech says:

            Still need to know how the form you first started with relates to anything other than death during birth, there is space for the cause of death of mother or child or both.

            No answer, no credibility. You are twisting and turning, Michael’s reference showed that the arrests are already happening in Mississippi.

            Never mind anything further is futile.

          • Henry says:

            I gave an answer that was clear. You are not listening/comprehending/reading. Time for sleep.

          • Henry says:

            To reinforce my previous clear answer, here is North Dakota state law:
            “23-02.1-20. Fetal death registration.
            1. A fetal death record for each fetal death which occurs in this state after a gestation
            period of twenty completed weeks or more or of less than twenty completed weeks of
            gestation when provided by rules of the state department of health must be filed with
            the state registrar.”

            http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t23c02-1.pdf?20140222050056

            Fill the form out that they have always filled out.

          • entech says:

            Henry, we seem to be at cross purposes here. I don’t doubt that in your state, probably every state and every country would have a requirement that a doctor or hospital would need to report a miscarriage that they attended or for which the woman was given treatment.
            I merely questioned whether the form you leaped in with so quickly was in fact the appropriate means of reporting a miscarriage in the home or other place outside of a medical facility. The “form” does not actually appear to be an official report but is clearly labeled as a “Certifier’s Worksheet”, presumably to gather information so that the official record can be made “using the electronic death registration system”.

            Thank you for your efforts and links to the various forms, it is now clear what the procedures are, but your previous was not clear to me and is is still not clear that your first nominated “form” was in fact the correct one. Sorry to be so pedantic.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      realist 5:10 “Another aspect of this would be making sure women eat what they “should” while pregnant…”

      And that they not be in environments that are harmful to the fetus. They should not drink alcohol and not be in places, including their home, where people smoke. To be sure alcohol is not served to pregnant women, all women should present a certificate, signed by a doctor in the last month varifying they are not pregnant. Laws could require all women be carded at bars and places were alcohol is sold and carried out.

      Then, there is driving a car–are the seat belt and air bags safe for the fetus? The right never did like women working outside the home so here is there chance.

      The people who like the human-at-conception theory are those who want more government, period.

      • Wolfy32 says:

        I have a friend that his wife is pregnant. And she smokes like a chimney… He’s so pissed at her for smoking while carrying his child.

        They both want the child, and she had almost lost it at one point. But, she continues to smoke 1-2 packs a day.

        I’m torn because, it’s her body to eat and do what she wants to herself, yet, obviously that is going to be a child they want to raise together, and who knows what issues it will have attributable to the smoking.. which could be 100% preventable.

        • Avatar of realist realist says:

          This is sad. It’s where education comes in so that women are aware of negative effects. Also, every dollar spent on smoking secession is saving lives in the long term.

          • Wolfy32 says:

            No, they know how bad smoking is. Education isn’t the issue. It’s the fact she doesn’t care. Her addiction is more important than the health of her baby. It’s very selfish and self centered. Must satisfy my cravings…

    • Jinx says:

      Realist, imagine the legal problems a poor woman would have regarding nutrition….no foods stamps and no WIC vouchers……if she would miscarry the fetus!

  5. Wolfy32 says:

    You’re not thinking far enough ahead. We’re already trying to develop artificial Uterus’s that fetus’s could develop in instead of being carried in women.

    Within a 100 to 200 years, this will be moot. Those that want babies will have the capability of renting an artificial uterus that is completely automatically monitored. Provides the proper nutrients, monitors health and development of the overall system. The mom and dad will be used strictly for conception when they are ready to have a child. There will be no more crack babies, or fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. It will all be monitored by complext computerized/ robotic incubators.

    At some point probably infused with various genetic traits as well. If there’s an inclination towards cancer, cancer genes may be modified, etc.

    A concept introduced in “A Brave New World” written in 1932, it’s been around for a little while.

    A concept documented in Science Daily (March 2nd, 2012) with early strides in developing an external device that mimics the uterus for embrionic development.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120302101543.htm

    Though it’s the early stages, and a lot more overall development into the process needs to be worked on, give science a couple hundred years and we’ll have a process in which couples go to purchase their next baby. And the mom and dad can just continue to work and go about their life without all the symptoms and issues of a natural pregnancy.

    I would guess at some point a government instituted control on natural pregnancy would be instituted globally making it viable for the corporations that come up with the process to succeed financially. Obviously a ton of risk for fraud and theft, abuse, etc.
    But, How long does our world let population growth go unchecked?

    • entech says:

      Wolfy, interesting work being carried on but I do think the religious crowd should try and put an end to it. They say that its most immediate benefit will be to improve IVF procedures, surely that is going against the will of God, if they were supposed to be pregnant then He would have made it happen.

      • Avatar of realist realist says:

        I’ve marveled at this logic myself. It would seem that if a couple remains childless, then, for religious people, god doesn’t want them to have children. Why are they taking matters into their own hands (no pun, yikes) and going with artificial insemination? God’s will appears to apply only to those the religious right is trying to bully into behavior they endorse.

        • Henry says:

          “Why are they taking matters into their own hands (no pun, yikes) and going with artificial insemination? “

          Following that “logic” of the night, why use a doctor at all for anything? That is a gross misunderstanding at work, and based on past performance, it won’t at all change.

  6. H.P.Drifter says:

    Here I thought women’s rights were headed towards equal protection under the law and the federal strike force was leaving the bedroom.
    Sounds to me that women should go on strike no more sex until this situation is set straight in the favor of the women rights. Screw these guys that are writing this type of legislation. With a new national women’s right slogan, “Give me Liberty or let them be Gay.”

  7. Wanna B Sure says:

    This reminds me of three men sitting by the beach in the evening. They all asked each one what they did, and how it was that they retired. The first said “I had a furniture store, and it burned down. I took the insurance money and retired. The second said he had a lumber yard, it too burned down, and he took the insurance money and retired. The third said he had a grocery store, and it was destroyed by a tornado. He took the insurance money and retired. The first two asked in unison; “How do you start a tornado”?

  8. Dan says:

    Sounds like Kenyan care to me. Constant monitoring of your health by the king’s men. “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” 1984.

  9. David says:

    Jon, the argument is backward. If a life begins at conception then there are all sorts of scenarios that flow from that fact. That one of those scenarios brings forth a gestapo like state does not mean that life does not begin at conception. It is a fact that a new human is created at conception. The question really is how we value that life. Your argument is similar to what Blackmon was thinking when he wrote Roe v. Wade. He was thinking the case was less about a woman’s right to choose and more about protecting doctors. His father was a doctor. This line of thinking really fails to get at the question of whether a fetus deserves protection.

    I do find your fantasy world to be just that – fantasy. While I know for certain that the constitution contains no right to abort a fetus, I am equally certain that the bill of rights protects someone from unreasonable searches and seizures as well as the right against selfincrimination. Also through in the doctor patient privilege and your concerns would appear to be moot. The laws against abortion pre-Roe v. Wade were used not to prosecute women. That is a myth. The laws were aimed at those providing the abortion. The would be mother was viewed as the second victim in the abortion. Thus Blackmon’s concern for doctors. I guess in fantasy land all things are possible.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      David 7:16 “I guess in fantasy land all things are possible.”

      I’m afraid I have to make that accusation of you. Neither you nor Henry seem to be able to make the transition from thinking about medical and legal circumstances today, and, what they would be when the fetus was a legal human being. Henry clings to the idea a missing human being would simply be entered into a computer record in the Department of Health and the entire matter would be resolved–no law enforcement would even know about it. In Henry’s fantasy mind, the procedure now followed would not change if a human being goes missing.

      You are having the same problem, assuming that the procedures and rules that now apply to a woman and her doctor, unreasonable searches, seizure and rights against self incrimination would apply and keep the mother our of trouble. I would guess one or more of these arguments are used every day in the U. S. by lawyers defending a murder suspect–they are probably successful sometimes and then sometimes the person goes to prison.

      On the privacy of doctor patient privilege, how far does that extend? For example, suppose my wife were found murdered and I was a suspect but denied any crime. Then, I admitted to my doctor I was stressed and killed her, is the doctor required not to reveal my confession to law inforcement?

      Reminding us of laws prior to Roe is an interesting exercise, but that was before a small army of politicans were elected to stop abortions. Elected people pass laws that help them politically. All the laws allowing the killing of people with guns, stand your ground, were passed for political purposes. I admit we don’t know exactly what laws would apply to humans killed in miscarriages, but we can start with the laws that now apply to missing persons and murders.

    • Henry says:

      Jon:“Henry clings to the idea a missing human being would simply be entered into a computer record in the Department of Health and the entire matter would be resolved–no law enforcement would even know about it.”

      I didn’t say that either. If there is enough probable cause to point to malfeasance, then law enforcement would be summoned. For example, a drunk driver slams into a woman carrying a human fetus. Probable cause would exist to involve law enforcement in the death of the fetus. That is current law now. That would apply as well with your hypothetical.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Henry 4:04 “I didn’t say that..If there is enough probable cause to point to malfeasance, then law enforment would be summoned.”

        Your post of 11:11 2014/02/22 said, Fill the form out that they have always filled out. On 5:03 2014/02/22, nothing would change in Jon’s hypothetical..

        Finally, you are seeing the human-at-birth problem a little more clearly, “If there is enough probable cause to point to malfeasance.” Our laws have not defined what “malfeasance” is in the case of a woman carrying a human being–a human being whose rights are either equal to the mother’s or, as it seems so often in abortion politics, have standing superior to the mother’s.

        What does the mother eat? Was she seen in a bar? How much did she exercise? Is she still working? Does she exceed the speed limti when she drives? Did she ever say to anyone else she did not want this pregnancy? How much money will she be out by this baby and has she ever lamented this loss?

        Malfeasance will be defined, at least in part, by legislators who refer to the mother and her rights as incedental to the BIG party in this arrangement, the fetus. My prediction is there would be a law enforcement sign off required for all miscarriages.

        Please don’t try to tell me this is impossible.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          I forgot to mention a police investigation of what was on the mother’s computer. There are, and will be many more, sites to instruct women on how to have an abortion that looks like a miscarriage. If she has any of this stuff on her computer, hmmmm.

        • Henry says:

          Most or all of your questions you presented under your hypothetical exist now with a full-term infant. Nothing would change except one thing. I’ll grant one thing will change. It will be unlawful to run the human fetus through the Mix Master blades, then sucking it out.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 7:25 “I’ll grant you one thing will change.”

            There is one other thing that would change, as you noted in an earlier post. The mother who had a miscarriage would have lurking over her head criminal laws.

          • Henry says:

            That is an extreme position, one that ignores probable cause and innocent until proven guilty.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>