From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Rhino  wrote:   
      
   >>. . .   
      
   >I know you are speaking to BTR but I think you've raised some very   
   >concerning issues. Are we really heading toward a point where the nanny   
   >state has full supervision of every pregnancy and can punish the woman   
   >(and anyone supporting her like a husband, other family, and close   
   >friends) if she doesn't do everything possible to have an optimum   
   >pregnancy? I'd find that very intrusive.   
      
   That is absolutely part of my concern with such a law in the criminal   
   code.   
      
   >On the other hand,  it wouldn't   
   >be at all surprising for government to take it upon itself to ensure   
   >that level of oversight, just like California is doing with cars that   
   >will shut themselves off if the driver seems distracted.   
      
   >I admit that I dread a future where the government has that much   
   >oversight over our individual autonomy. I suppose that makes it sound   
   >like I want mothers to be free to smoke, drink alcohol, take drugs, etc.   
   >which I most certainly DON'T condone! The older I get, the more sympathy   
   >I have for a point of view that Robert Heinlein expressed in some of his   
   >books: at some point, the number of rules becomes excessive and then   
   >it's time to move somewhere less intrusive. He was especially fond of   
   >the idea of settling frontiers on other planets.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)