If Human Life at Conception is Law, All Miscarriages Will Be Suspicious. It’s Already Started.

When I posted a blog outlining the inevitable involvement of law enforcement in miscarriages in a life-at-conception world, many readers scoffed.   It was not done before Roe, they said, so it would not now.

I countered that politically times are different now.  There was little enforcement against abortion before WWII. Only in the late 1040′s did it became a politically popular to go after doctors and others who provided abortion services.  Women were referred to as “victims”.  Today pregnant women are seen by many politicians, not as victims, but as villians.

The reason women went from victims to villians was the women’s movement.  When women became organized in groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) they were effective.  This effectiveness spawned opposition.  By portraying themselves as formidable, women were see as threats.  They were no longer victims, but villians.

As we speak, a bill is being debated in the State of Kansas legislature which would require all miscarriages to be reported to state government.  This would include pregnancies starting from day one.

This is the second state to attempt to pass such a bill.  The link points out that bills like this one would turn the pregnant woman from an unfortunate victim into a suspect.

If there are either men or women who do not want to see pregnant women turned into suspects by their own government, they need to be aware this is precisely the intent of parts of the anti abortion political lobby.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/24/3418085/kansas-miscarriage-reporting/

 

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. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to If Human Life at Conception is Law, All Miscarriages Will Be Suspicious. It’s Already Started.

  1. Henry says:

    No big deal. We can burn them in the ovens to heat our hospitals. Staying warm is a good thing.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/unbabies-u-incinerated-clinical-waste-heating-fuel-report-article-1.1732264

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Henry 12:58 “No big deal.”

      I’m sure that link refutes what I wrote in my blog about requiring women to report miscarriages to authorities. That I don’t understand how it refutes my blog is not important.

      • Henry says:

        Jon, please rephrase both sentences. Thanks.

        P.S. Have another one.

      • Henry says:

        It wasn’t intended to refute. It was shared to demonstrate the level of callousness society currently has toward life. We are starting to become no different than previous notorious governments in regards to eugenics.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Henry 1:54 “It was shared to demonstrate the level of callousness..”

          I find it a callous disregard for pregnant women to put them in the same status as a prisoner on parole. But, there are many in the anti abortion camp who want to do just that.

          • Henry says:

            Who?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 2:23 For starters, an elected Senator in the State Senate of Kansas, Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook, Republican.

            When, eventually, other anti abortionists figure out monitoring pregnant women is the only way to prevent clandestined abortions, they will have no choice but to be on board as well. It will be seen as not logical to call a fetus a human being and not provide the full force and protection of the law provided to the already born.

            I fully realize current anti abortionists cannot admit this inevitability because it will hurt their political agenda.

          • Henry says:

            Cook wants to imprison women? That doesn’t make sense. Do you have some data?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 3:18 “Cook wants to imprison women?”

            There would have to be the same kind of monitoring of women the prison parolees are subjected to. There has already have been bills introduced monitoring women’s activities, their food and drink.

            Anti abortion politics will put government into personal private lives like nothing else we have experienced. I’d urge you and Father James to continue denying this.

          • Henry says:

            No data then. This is the atheist way.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 8:44 “No data then. This is the atheist way.”

            Data #1. Elevation of missing plane established.
            Data #2. Direction of flight of missing plane established.
            Data #3. Selection of best airport for emergency landing established.
            Data #4. Pilot selected best airport and flew toward it at best altitude for an airplane under emergency conditions established.

        • entech says:

          Henry 1:45 Where does eugenics come into it?
          You accuse others of muddying the waters but sometimes your own tangents are pretty oblique.

  2. David says:

    I still don’t think the slope is as slippery as you suggest. Think Progress clearly is ginning this up to be a case of jack booted thugs in every uterus. I think the idea is to promote the idea that a fetus is a human being. While I think this is largely foolish, I don’t pin the same motives on the legislator as the Liberal writing this piece. As I said before in this age of narcissism anything is possible but I think there would be a huge backlash against any prosecutor foolish enough to charge a woman for getting an abortion. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong . . . well, maybe on this blog. :-)

    • entech says:

      It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong . . . well, maybe on this blog. :-)
      Don’t sell yourself short, you have been wrong lots of times. :(

  3. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    It’s curious that the same folks who insist gay marriage could lead to bestiality categorically deny that fetus personhood could lead to law enforcement investigation of any known or suspected pregnancy that does not result in a live, full term birth.

    • Avatar of realist realist says:

      So true. When a miscarriage occurs, a women is often in need of a D & C so that it can be certain that all the parts of the placenta have been removed from the uterus. I can imagine very well that it would become routine for police to be alerted and a women asked to provide details of how her miscarriage occurred so they could see if she had any role in instigating the miscarriage. Doctors would be questioned about any evidence of tampering with the pregnancy. This could lead to doctors who report things like marks on the cervix that could be clues. Once something is a crime, the police will get involved with looking for those who are in violation. Common sense tell us that.

  4. cate says:

    it is already happening. in indiana a woman who tried to commit suicide while she was 8 months pregnant spent a year in jail on charges that she tried to murder her fetus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bei_Bei_Shuai there are other similar cases going on right now, too.

    this is happening more and more as conservatives tighten laws on abortion access under the false pretense of “protecting” women.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      cate 12:44 “This is happening more as conservatives tighten laws on abortion access under the false pretense of ‘protecting’ women.”

      Thanks for that link, cate. Since I started writing about the inevitability of monitoring and prosecuting pregnant women, I received some actual cases of this going on–more than I knew about.

      I disappointed there is not more public discussion and news media coverage. The logic of it is so clear: When you declare something a human being and it dies, the cause, responsibility and circumstances have to be investigated. The person with resposibility will have to be monitored.

      • Wolfy32 says:

        It’ll be a boost for pregnancy prevention!!! If I were a woman I’d be terrified of the possibility of something going wrong and being put in prison for it. The stress of the risk of being put in prison could lead to a miscarriage. Heh. We could end up with a very sterile America with only those that can’t afford birth control giving birth. Well, the face of America will change to an aging population or simply an import country. Import the families and kids as we criminalize pregnancy.

        How that’s any different than china having had the social policy of only one child per family…. I’m not sure. I think this is more extreme. But, it’s what the religious want.. Then when things get heated and people really are going to prison for miscarriages, then, the same religious will evangelize saying we’re in the end times, America is on the verge of communism and the antichrist is taking over…. When it’s the religious that brought it on in the first place..

      • Adam Heckathorn says:

        Wow I didn’t take this as anything but speculation of something in the future. I don’t think Our more religious posters are aware of this.

        • Adam Heckathorn says:

          Wait I guess some are.

        • Henry says:

          The law does seem to be a little inconsistent. One can walk down to the local clinic and get a slice and dice procedure with a little vacuum, the remains sent to some oven to be burnt up. No problem with the law.

          Children have been sacrificed by fire for some time now. Enjoy the warmth. If you were in certain hospitals, you could keep warm from the ovens. In our advancements in eugenics, we have come full circle again. First Molech and his ovens, then the 1930′s/1940′s state socialists and their ovens, now today our high tech efficient ovens-so efficient we do not even know they are there.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

          The fire of eugenics just does not seem to get stamped out. Stamp it out with your vote.

    • Michael Ross says:

      I’d say putting someone in jail for trying to commit suicide is ludicrous, pregnant or not, but you need to know that pregnant women have a much lower suicide rate than women as a whole. Aborted women have a higher rate. If a woman is not ready to be a parent, have the baby, put him/her up for adoption. The child will have a life, and infertile couple will have a child to love and raise and the birth mother can get on with her life knowing she chose life. It a win-win-win outcome.

      • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

        Michael 4:14 “…and the birth mother can get on with her life knowing she chose life.”

        It seems like you are assuming the abortions are the cause of the higher rate of suicide. That would be the way most antiabortionist would reason.

        It seems to me it could well be that women who have statistcially higher rates of suicide might be women who, statisically, are more likely to get abortions. I’m certainly not saying that every woman who gets an abortion is suicidal, but the tiny percentage who do might be more likely to come from this cohort.

      • cate says:

        you are flat out wrong. women who are pregnant are one of the highest demographics at risk for suicide. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/183/4/279.full

        Women who are pregnant and who decide to have an abortion are ALREADY at risk to develop depression, substance abuse, and numerous other issues, typically due to CLASS rather than pregnancy. you anti-choicers like to claim that women who have abortions are at risk for something you call “post abortion stress syndrome,” which all evidence-based medical organizations reject as bunk science.

        have you ever talked to a woman who has given up a child for adoption? or have you ever talked to a child who has been adopted (or more likely, a child who aged out of the foster care system)? the women who give up their children don’t just “get on with their lives,” they suffer and question their decision every single day. there are children who are negatively affected by adoption. you think adoption is a “win-win-win” and that means, to me, that you have not considered it fully.

        • Michael Ross says:

          So the answer is kill the kid before he/she has a chance at life. I guess its just what you chose, life or death, war or peace. Our culture has chosen death and war and so have you. The two go hand in hand:

          http://www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2004/04-06-14abortionvswar.htm

          Another study in The British Medical Journal discovered that the rate of suicide in women after birth was 5.9 out of 100,000. Among women who had abortions, the rate was 34.7. The suicide rate for women who had not been pregnant was 11.3. Again, carrying a pregnancy to term was seen to reduce the suicide rate.

          http://www.lifenews.com/2013/07/31/studies-show-higher-risk-of-suicide-for-women-following-an-abortion/

          • Henry says:

            Exactly. Kill the kid before they cause hardship to themselves or their mother when adopted out.

            There is a waft of smoke in the air consisting of aborted baby ash. We all breathe it in. It desensitizes us. Eugenics at work.

          • cate says:

            that is not at all the answer. the actual answer is to fund comprehensive sex education and to make all forms of birth control freely accessible and to make their mechanisms of use widely understood. however, abortion absolutely should still be legal. why jump instantly to this inflammatory rhetoric of “killing babies?” that’s not what an abortion is. educate yourself.

          • cate says:

            also, you might want to try to find some legitimate sources to properly support your arguments.

          • Henry says:

            Michael, be told, your British Medical Journal is not apparently a legitimate source.

          • Michael Ross says:

            Sorry to know that . The BMJ is one of my favorite reads.

      • Henry says:

        Michael, I think you have thought this out very well.

        • entech says:

          Much as I frequently disagree with Michael I must agree that he does think things through. He would be a good example for you – try it.

          • Henry says:

            Got anything that isn’t a personal attack? Your use of pure fallacy is not setting a very good example for the greenhorn atheists. We are told atheism is supposed to be about logic and reason. Your pure fallacies aren’t that.

          • entech says:

            Which post are you answering the one to the may or not be priest for misuse of the word.
            Or mine suggesting that you think things through like Michael does, this is not fallacy either just some good advice – advice that I am sure you agree that I could well take myself

  5. Avatar of Mac Mac says:

    It just occurred to me that we’re approaching this all wrong.

    Ultra-conservatives are very comfortable with, and in fact often encourage government/law enforcement involvement with all things sexual and any sexual relations they may consider sinful.

    Making it unlawful for a woman to go forward with life after a miscarriage without accountability to the public is probably the least of their concerns, and in fact might be the goal.

    • Michael Ross says:

      “Ultra- conservative”, that is anyone who is not a leftist wacko. Traditional conservatives believe in very limited government that protects privacy and property rights. I believe you are referring to neocons that are always fighting wars on drugs, crime, terror, etc, etc, and must violate our rights to keep us safe from the latest bogyman.

  6. Fr. James says:

    I did a bit of fact checking and read the bill as amended. In fact the real core of the issue is to protect the personhood of the unborn child. It is all about granting a birth and death certificate and recognizing that this was a real human person. In NO way is it intended to punish, harass, or harm the mother. That is pure fallacy. So it is not what Jon says it is. I guess propaganda and scare tactics are better then the truth when it comes to pro-abortion arguments. Very disappointing Jon.

    • Wolfy32 says:

      What I would agree with moreso in this discussion is, why do we need to define anything for the mother? How about we find ways to make sure the mother is taken care of to have the education, knowledge, financial, and social support needed to bring a healthy baby to term, and not only that, but have the resources needed to care for the baby post birth.

      If we as a society supported the mother(s) of our communities, and helped counsel them to find solutions to their problems that offered alternatives to abortion, then the whole abortion debate would be a non issue. Find ways to define life at conception and try to determine how to apply that definition in other ways, really doesn’t matter if the support system is in place to help mothers support their babies and / or get the birth control they need for the future so they aren’t deciding whether to feed their current children and have an abortion or starve them and have another baby that the mother can’t handle in the first place.

      Our societies’ problems don’t go away because something is legal or illegal. Or because something is judged righteous or unrighteous. They are reduced when people put the work, time, swet, tears, joy, love, and blood into the community to help through life without hurting them.

      Instead, many want to jump on the band wagon of whether it’s right or wrong or legal or not… That requires very little work on our part… It’s easy to do, but doesn’t really solve or change anything.

      • Fr. James says:

        The point is not defining the mother, but defining that a child is a child. St. Gianna’s home provides assistant to mothers free of charge regardless of religion or lack thereof.

    • entech says:

      A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true. A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.

      I know about formal and informal fallacies, what is a “pure” fallacy? You have thrown the word about a few times and obviously have no idea of what it means it just sounds good. to you. Priest that I know would not misuse something so egregiously, neither would they talk the way you do. Are you sure Fr. means that you are a Roman Catholic priest or is it like your misuse of some words intended to make your arguments appear better.

  7. H.P.Drifter says:

    I have a women friend who’s mother had a hard time getting pregnant. When my friend got married after age twenty five her and her husband who is a little older really wanted to start a family. Both are educated people and have good jobs, the kind of people you want to have children, they are a steady couple who can afford to have a family. Since her mother had had trouble getting pregnant she thought she might be the same way so she hooked up with a good OBYN right away, to get checked out to see if she was going to have any problems. The Doctor assured her that she was fine and should not have any problems (the husband got checked out as well, no problems there either). Despite the seemingly good health she had several miscarriages, before she could bring a child full term, she eventually had two children and spent most of her time during both pregnancies in bed. The kids are now teenagers and the kids are doing fine. I know this woman quite well, she is a sensitive lady and was devastated by the miscarriages in the first place. Now if she would have had the government all over her about her problems, most likely she never would have been able to conceive at all. The government needs to stay out of peoples personal lives, and most of all they should stay away from the bedrooms of citizens of this country period.

    H.P.D.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      H.P.D. 8:30 Great story and post. Thanks.

    • Grandma says:

      Exactly. Now you need to hear from real women. I once had a miscarriage and as a result spent an entire night cramping and bleeding in a hospital emergency room while some idiot doctor popped in every few hours to ask me what I had done to cause it. When a doctor who knew what he was doing came in the next morning and raised hell, from his comments I got the feeling that someone, and not me,was in a whole lot of trouble. I do not want any woman to go through that… Though I can think of a few men who might benefit from the experience.

    • entech says:

      M sister in law had a similar problem, seems that her pelvic structure was out of line. Some manipulation and now two boys in their thirties.
      Some anti abortionists see things that don’t exist, with most of them it is not only in the reproduction field!

    • Michael Ross says:

      H.P.: “The government needs to stay out of peoples personal lives, and most of all they should stay away from the bedrooms of citizens of this country period. ”

      And they should stay out of our pocketbooks as well. As long as they confiscate half the wealth that the economy produces and we must come to them on our hands and knees to get a little of it back so we can eat, educate our kids, see a doctor and just about everything else then they will be in our personal lives, bedrooms, and just about anywhere else the please.

      • Grandma says:

        Fine, if you want to pay for your own streets and highways and police and fire protection and schools and care for the elderly and veterans and the armed forces… Then you would really have problems.

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>