From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Legal Questions
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:48:57 GMT

sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> sean@Unify.com (Sean P. Curley) writes:
>>> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>>>> I don't beleive for an instant that you really want to see legal personhood
>>>> begin at conception.  To do so would require that murder charges be filed
>>>> against any women who gets an abortion.  Engaging in any hazardous activity
>>>> while pregnant would be child endangerment.
>>>> 
>>>> Is THIS the sort of world you want to live in?

>>> That is exactly what I want.  I do consider it a person at conception and I
>>> think murder charges should be filed against any women who gets an abortion

>> If it is a person at conception, do we charge the woman with involuntary
>> manslaughter if it fails to implant?  Just for your information, about 1/3
>> of all products of conception fail to implant and get washed out during
>> menstration.  Just a little reality check here...

> Failure to implant and those 1/3 failures after conception you are talking
> about are most often from no fault of the woman, in which case she can not
> be blamed.

That's true, but I'm wondering how you can define personhood as beginning at
conception yet blithely ignore all these millions of new citizens being
washed away to their deaths.

And another thing: let's say a woman has a spontaneous abortion, i.e., a
miscarriage.  To what extent would the state be permitted to investigate
whether or not the abortion was somehow induced?

In other words, if the state has a compelling interest in protecting _all_
fetal life, to what extent can the mother's privacy be violated to ensure
the safety of the fetus?

>>> - and my wife has said the same thing...

>> Bully for her.  You might ask her if a pregnant woman should be charged with
>> child endangerment for smoking, drinking or sitting in a sauna.

> Absolutely - anything that clearly endangers the life of the baby.

Ummm, but smoking and drinking are _legal_ activities.

> As another opinion, I think sauna's are debatable (in Japan they are
> encouraged to go to saunas during pregnancy and are discouraged from
> going into cold water), but smoking and excessive drinking are endangerment.

Spina bifida.  Mothers who use saunas or hot whirlpools expose their fetuses
to increased risk of this disease.  My local fitness club is festooned with
signs warning pregnant women not to use the saunas and whirlpools.

It's clear that you and your wife don't like abortion, Sean, and I don't have
a problem with that.  It is also clear to me that you and your wife want someone
else besides the woman to control her reproductive destiny.  I'm wondering
who could possibly be more qualified than the woman herself.  Imo, the most
important reason for a woman to be pregnant is that she _wants_ to be pregnant,
and trying to turn the clock back to the bad old days of pre-RvW is a lousy idea.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
"No I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God."  --  George Bush
Newsgroups: talk.abortion