Since there’s no law being broken in any of the instances, each of these court cases most likely had to have been brought by somebody with standing — arguably the father of the child, or perhaps a grandparent. If the plaintiff is Child Welfare Services, that’s one thing, and I agree that allowing such an action sets a horrible precedent. But I imagine most of the cases in question were filed by concerned relatives, in which case the Court is not really intervening so much as settling a family dispute in favor of the concerned relative. Without knowing who the plaintiff is, what standing they had, and the details about which they were concerned, it’s impossible to know what precedent is being set here, or whether it’s improper.

While there may be room for criticism of the examples given, once the fundamental truth is acknowledged that a human life begins at conception (a matter of distinct human DNA existing in a living organism), a mother’s “right” or “freedom” to do something clearly harmful or even life-threatening to the child has to be curtailed.

Your question seems to presume denial of the humanity of the unborn child, which pro-abortion advocates also do by refusing to call a “fetus” a child or unborn human being, though those terms are more precise, since “fetus” could apply to the unborn offspring of other animals.

More good stuff for your intellectual consumption! Winning Council Submissions First place with 1 2/3 points! – Mere Rhetoric – Wonderful: Iraqis Permanently Scratch Out Ancient Hebrew Inscription Biblical Prophet’s Tomb Second place with 1 1/3 points …

It comes down then to the issue of is the mother capable of knowing, acknowledging, her need for help and being able to follow up on it. Is she so badly addicted to smoking that she can’t quit, even at the risk of endangering the child, which is after all an innocent party to all this.

It becomes then an issue of whether or not the mother is capable of making her own decisions, or of being able to act on those decisions in the best interests of the innocent child, which is also conceivably in the best long-term interests of the state and taxpayers who are left holding the burden of the care of said child.

In other words, it’s complicated, much too complicated to boil down to a matter of liberal or “nanny state” versus conservative ideology.

First Place, Council: Wonderful: Iraqis Permanently Scratch Out Ancient Hebrew Inscription On Biblical Prophet’s Tomb @ Mere Rhetoric Let’s put the Palestinian Authority in charge of Jewish and Christian holy sites. Sure they’re actively destroying…

Very well said! As we give way on the big concepts (sanctity of life, definition of marriage) we fall into the trap of unintended consequences and end up with MORE gov’t to fix the failures that those hugely important values held in check. It is like giving up the very ground that allows us to stand. It is a very, very subtle point so it is easily missed.

I haven’t addressed the individual medical issues in this question because they do not matter one whit if you can’t conceptualize the problem on a bigger scale. Those anecdotal oddities (which is what they are) disappear (thankfully) with correct principles. I know it is idealistic, but if we do not aim at ideals we lose all realities.

My point is definitely not that we should allow state intervention in ridiculous cases such as these (conservatives or libertarians would never agree with these specific examples), but I want to remind people that this *doesn’t* mean you can’t be pro-life, or that you must be pro-choice. They are different issues! The question posed is a false dichotomy.

We have a goal of less gov’t intervention, but if that becomes our only focus, our only plumb line or standard, our only ideal in and of itself, then we will NOT do what needs to be done to accomplish exactly that.

We would all be better off if we spoke up, but there are few brave enough to do it. Much of our problem stems from the fact that those in government have a “sense of service” that they often are too eager to please others and stay in office, so they pick up on popular causes. The doctor in the original post knew this very well and that’s probably one of the primary reasons he pressed forward for government intervention – they could help get done what he felt compelled to fix.

And, since it involved a child, he knew very well that there would be no end to the people that would back the cause and interfere with what should be a parental responsibility. And, in doing so, he has advanced the cause of the nanny state.

Clair Schwan

The question in the original post, on which the poster expresses a POV, is to what extent do we empower the state in the pregnancy & birth process.

Note that the first 3 examples cited all involved a judge ordering a C-section. As I don’t know the identities of the judges involved nor their political leanings, I can’t say what motivated each of these rulings. But the *actions* on their face are those of an interventionist and powerful state.

I do believe there is a difference (a big one IMO) between (a) the state, in the person of a judge, ordering a woman to have a C-section, and (b) the state, in the form of a people’s elected legislature, passing laws to severely restrict abortion.

I’m a pro-life conservative. Philosophically speaking, the trend we have been seeing is, government tends to grow as traditional societal institutions and restraints break down. The liberal-left siren song of overturning traditional moral values INEVITABLY leads to more government … as it is designed to do! I don’t think conservatives should play into the left’s hands by basically falling into the mindset of, “the remedy for bad behavior is more (and more powerful) government.”

The ability of government to do evil is exponentially greater than the abilility of an individual do to evil. Although you may have the best of intentions as a pro-lifer by empowering the state to intervene in cases like this, I think you are also creating a monster. And we all know how these types of stories go. One day, the monster turns on its creator.