In all of the hoopla surrounding the Abortion Debate, I hear a lot of
statements regarding "save the children", "murderous abortion doctors",
"God abhors this stuff", and the like from one side, but have also
wondered precisely what the effects of an abortion ban would be, and
precisely how it would be implemented.
This may be because of my work as a software programmer, which has to
translate instructions such as
"multiply X by 19 and then add 5"
to either one of
MOV X, R0
MUL #19, R0
ADD #5, R0
or
MOV X, R0
MOV R0, R1
LSH R1,1
ADD R1, R0
LSH R1,3
ADD R1, R0
MOV #5, R1
ADD R1, R0
depending on how anal-retentive I feel and the capabilities of the
machine. (Fortunately compilers do much of the gruntwork.)
This may make some of my conclusions suspect. Nevertheless, the question
remains, in some form; if we are to "save the children" by banning
abortion, how, precisely, would one go about it?
If I crank up my paranoia high enough so that I'm wearing four tinfoil
hats (one of which has a rotating antenna to detect spy-mind beams) and
never venture outside except in the dead of night when no one is watching,
and even then I wear reflective wrap to keep the infrared cameras from
looking at me, then I might contemplate a few procedures such as the
following.
[1] Cameras, radioscanners, and sniffers everywhere, from the
post-mounted affair which can watch a woman's cleavage (I'd have to look
but nipples get tender at some point during gestation; presumably that can
translate into a temperature difference -- note that these would be fed
into a computer and not watched by rather bored, horny security guards
looking for a cheap thrill!) to a roving dog patrol trained to indicate
when in the presence of a pregnant woman, presumably by sitting down,
barking, or even through a device in the handler's hand or around his
wrist, monitoring a signal from the brain of the specially-trained dog
(which has its own implant that it can activate because of its training).
That woman is then checked for an Identichip, and entered into a system
database through a Wi-Fi-Key-By. If the woman doesn't already have an
Identichip, one is injected into her arm by a rather sinister but
physically mostly harmless device that looks a bit like a large metal gun
or some such, which shoots the Identichip into her body, probably in the
upper arm. The device can also issue a matching Identicard, which the
woman must carry at all times.
If one doesn't like the upper arm, other regions of the body might be
substitutable, such as the buttocks, breasts, or the neck area (I'd not
recommend the nipples, as men tend to like to nibble around that area).
Men also have Identichips, of course, but that's outside the debate area
of these particular newsgroups. It might be possible for an Identichip to
do chemical monitoring to detect whether a woman is pregnant.
[2] Once a woman has been chipped in some form, she is then sniffed on an
occasional basis, either by the rather quaint nose of a four-legged
roving canine specially trained, or by an electromechanical device that
passively monitors the air surrounding it. Depending on intrusiveness
desired and accuracy, the device or dog would identify whether she has
certain chemicals on her person, and these chemicals would indicate she is
with child (or, more accurately, with implanted zygote, embryo, or
foetus), not unlike the far more sensitive urine pregnancy test. The
central database will get this indication and enter the fact that the
woman is now considered pregnant into a high-powered database. Pregnancy
tests may also require the woman to submit her ID for registration as well.
[3] The database information will now be accessible to all comers, and
commercial Identireader units are of course assumed to be in wide supply,
together with laws that, among other things forbid the serving of alcohol
or smokes to pregnant women, since it is known these can damage the
gestating z/e/f. Depending on various studies it might be the case that
the woman would be forbidden from certain medications as well, and of
course she would be forbidden abortions in all cases except when an
independent panel of doctors has determined she is near death and abortion
is the only method by which she can be saved. Under certain conditions
she may be required to undergo an examination, of course, to verify the
information in the database -- there are known false positives, and false
negatives. I'd have to work out what those conditions might be, and I've
run out of hats...
[4] Once the woman's in the hospital waiting for her bundle of joy (FSVO
"joy"), she can be carefully watched, and even shackled as necessary
(although presumably in a more caring fashion than recently reported;
ideally, the shackle would be to one leg only). After the delivery of the
baby, the baby then gets an Identichip of its own (the card comes much
later, probably in the early teenage years), and is either given to the
mom or to an orphanage or an adoptive couple. It doesn't really matter,
especially if the mom is now dead. But we've saved the baby, and that's
what's important, right?
[5] It would be interesting to contemplate the extension of the Identichip
concept to allow for detection of illegal substances; one would probably
need to plan for a larger unit. This can be done by sawing out a
square-shaped hole, probably somewhere in the shoulder region, and gluing
in a plastic box (at most, about the size of a deck of cards) which can
hold a small circuit card and a glucose extractor power unit, plus a
series of sniffermodules which can, among other things, detect for
pregnancy, marijuana metabolization byproducts, steroids, PCP, cocaine,
LSD, and whatever else is deemed illegal this week. This module might be
termed a Trackerchip, to differentiate it from its more benign Identichip
cousin (FSVO "benign"). Various issues ensue, most of them having to do
with clotting and clothing, presumably.
[6] The Trackerchip might also be fitted with a small microphone (which
would pick up sounds through the bone surrounding the box). That way, the
subject's talking can be easily monitored, to ensure that the subject is
not committing anything illegal, such as speaking out against the
government, dancing, or lusting after pretty girls out of season. (I'm not
sure what women lust after, though the government probably has a few
research projects available thereon.) Also, during certain areas of
Sunday, the microphone will ensure that the subject is in a church
somewhere, singing hymns. Which brings me to...
[7] All should worship the almighty God, for He is merciful in His sight,
and of course abhors abortion, sinfulness in any form (in this system
sinfulness = illegality), and red shoes. Yes, red shoes, which are the
bane of deities everywhere, especially ones that fly in balloons, and are
genial enough when caught in person...oh, wait, I need to turn down the
paranoia a bit; the giraffes in my bathtub have started to dance with
the black helicopters again.
There, that's better.
[8] Now, the frightening and totally unrealistic scenario above is
technically possible, but legally improbable, but one does wonder as to
precisely how one would "save the children". Even within the current
legal context, one can contemplate the following:
[a] The status quo.
[b] A federal ban, of varying restrictiveness. One can either go
South Dakota, which bans all abortions except those known to
save the life of the mother, or one can allow abortions if she
can prove rape or incest. (How she does that is presumably her
problem.)
[c] A state-by-state patchwork quilt. In this case, which may be
arguably the most logical case absent other considerations,
a person might go from an "abortion-dry" state to an
"abortion-allows" state without difficulty. Maybe. Also, a minor
may want to get someone to drive her over the border. Will either
be legal?
So how about it, pro-lifers? How much of this makes sense, and how much
work should go into enforcing an abortion ban? Bear also in mind that the
South Dakota law is about the same severity as the Texas laws that were
struck down all the way back in April 1973, mandating a 5-year prison
sentence for any doctor caught in the act...
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
