One tactic the anti-abortion crowd uses in their debate is the proposition that the unborn are people too. Since they are people they need protection from the government. However, as it is often pointed out they very same people that make this claim are the first to cut funding of protective services for women and children once they are born. These are the same people who believe that the mothers who use food stamps to buy food for their children are abusing the system.
Well, I also think that they aren't all that serious about protecting the unborn either.
If they really cared about that life within the potential mother and they believed that the government was the tool needed to protect these unborn children they would certainly need to approach the unborn in a different way.
First of all, the unborn child is more sensitive to toxic chemicals in our environment than at any other stage of our development. Toxic chemicals have been linked to the cause of many birth defects and disabilities. The exposure to these toxic chemicals at times may be severe enough to cause a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage early in the pregnancy. Certainly a group that cares about the well being of the unborn would want to spend money exploring the types of chemicals that cause this to happen. Certainly a group that cares about the unborn would want to clean up toxic areas were companies have dumped pollution into the air, water and ground around their plants. Certainly a group that really cared about the unborn would want these mothers to live in a safer location once they are pregnant. Perhaps they would like the government to put them up in a hotel for the first three months of their pregnancy in order to protect the unborn.
But, there is more to protecting the unborn than keeping their environment clean. The unborn child is sensitive to the diet of the mother. A poor diet will result in poor development and the child, once born, will be off on the wrong foot. Unfortunately many of the pregnant women in our society can not afford the best nutrition for themselves, let alone their unborn child. And, when they become pregnant they certainly will eat even more calories because of the demand of the unborn child. Certainly the people who care about the unborn would want that child to have the best nutrition. What better way than to have the government provide the food at the hotel that they are putting these women in for the first three months of their pregnancy.
Food and nutrition are good, but many women might choose to put other things in their bodies that will certainly effect the unborn child. Perhaps the women at the facility would need to be keep there so that they would not slip out and drink a beer or smoke a cigarette. In fact, friends might try to bring something in to them, so visitation would certainly need to be monitored. Perhaps some guards walking up and down the halls would provide the needed security for the unborn child.
And, the three months may actually be to short a time. Many things can actually happen in the last six months as well. If we keep the women in the facility until the child is born we will simply keep it safer. After all, it is for the protection of the unborn.
But, how do we get the women to go to the facility? Obviously we only have the protection of the unborn child in mind. Perhaps we could have the women report to the government when they think they might be pregnant. However, many of them might not know and not care to find out. The simple solution is that every time that they have sex they should be required to go to the facility until they have menstruated. This would be very easy to implement, a judge would be required to inspect the menstrual blood sample and a women would be free to go. But, would the women report that they had sex? Probably not, so it would also be required for the men who had sex to report their activity as well with the name and address of the women they had sex with. If the women refused to go to the facility within a few hours, then the police could easily just go and get them. This would certainly be for the best protection of the unborn.
This would obviously have some positive effects, women wouldn't have sex very often and we would be protecting the unborn.
Are there any conservatives out there willing to tell me why this isn't a good solution?
-----------------------------------------------------
Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit