alek0

Please elaborate on your reasons for this claim. Also, can you give reason why should a dignity of a fetus, which, as you admit yourself, has not developed a mind yet, be more important than health and future fertility of a woman?

Also, how about respect for body integrity of a woman and not inflicting horrors on it? Some of pregnancy complications are true horrors, not to mention some procedures at assisted delivery, such as episiotomies (sometimes having lifelong pain and fecal incontinence as a conseuqence) and C-sections.

Why should fetuses have more rights than children? You cannot force a parent to have a medical intervention for the benefit of the child. You can't force them to donate bone marrow to save child's life. You can't even force them to give blood or quit smoking around the baby. And yet pregnant women should be forced to accept whichever invasive procedure is considered necessary for the benefit of the fetus? Again, I'm asking you: what about woman's dignity and her right to body integrity? Another question is: why pro-lifers think that unborn are more important than those born already, including women and existing children. Children who are abused, neglected or dying from starvation and perfectly preventable diseases in the third world? But who cares about hem, save the precious fetuses and who gives a shit what happens to their life support (pregnant women) in the process.

the_cave

Oh I didn't say that--and you're quite right to bring it up. I'd say that if a fetus doesn't have a mind, I can't see as how there are any rights that could be more important than the mother's. And if it does, it could have rights that are perhaps equal to, but not greater than, the mother's.

Absolutely--these are all important considerations. I agree wholeheartedly.

Well, ignoring the last question (which I don't believe applies to me, and which I don't have an answer to) you bring up very good points. As it stands, I certainly don't see any legal reason why current abortion procedures should in fact be restricted (given a legal case for some sort of abortion rights--which I tenatively accept.) That could change if there were a moral case for it--and you're right, there are conflicting issues. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything--I'm merely proposing some standards to see whether they're consistent. As I said, it's an issue to be worked out.

Let's say that at some point, a fetus acquires a mind, and thereby becomes a person (obviously we don't necessarily agree on this, but if the fetus doesn't, then there's no issue; there's only an issue if the fetus does.) Both that person and the mother then have rights; the mother the right to bodily integrity and dignity, and the fetus as well. How do we resolve these rights? Again, I'm more or less going to say that I have no idea, and I'm not sure I'm the one to decide it. But I'm hoping that thoughtful people (such as yourself, and I mean that sincerely) can. I'm not sure there's an easy solution--i.e., one that can be worked out in a few messages. Again, if a fetus is not a person, there's no issue.

There are admittedly some ways I can think of to resolve it; for example, we could say (some do) that rights are hierarchical; a fetus' rights are subordinate to a mothers. It seems this would mean that people do not have entirely equal rights (again, this is assuming the fetus is a person.) I'm not saying this is obviously wrong, but it might mean we have to alter some of our assumptions and rhetoric regarding human rights (or we might not have to--we might already have those assumptions. I'm curious as to what people actually think.)

alek0

Thanks for a very reasonable reply. The problem with the limit you are proposing is that many women would not even know they are pregnant by 7-8 weeks. 12 would be more reasonable limit (and many countries have 12-16 weeks limit for abortions for non-medical reasons) to take into account that fact. Why should a woman be penalized merely for the fact that she has irregular cycles? Also, brain waves do not necesserily equal consciousness. While myself would personally not be comfortable with aborting other than in very early pregnancy, there is no real proof that lets say abortion of 10 week fetus would cause that fetus pain and suffering. If avoiding pain and suffering is an issue, there is much stronger case for ethical vegeterianism than for restriction of early abortions.

As for legal issues, do you agree that it is inconsistent that a woman can have episiotomy against her wishes if doctor thinks it is for the good of the fetus (or no other reason than his own convenience since it maybe easier to sticth up than a tear, though it is more painful and more risky for the woman), while after baby is born neither of the parents can be made to submit to medical interventions for child's benefit?

Edited to add: the abortion question, IMO, could be nicely resolved with development of artifical wombs and techniques for successful fetus transfer (preferrably not more traumatic than abortion). I would think if that was possible, number of abortions would go down drastically. Women who have abortions are not irresponsible murderers nor are they victims of "abortionist" propaganda (the way pro-lifers would like to represent them) - most of them are merely protecting their body integrity, right to life and pursuit of happiness. However, I don't think that such solution would satisfy religious pro-lifers. That would deny punishing the sinner (as if hell wouldn't be enough if they are right) and after all "fallen women" must take responsibility for their wicked acts. Blech! Sorry for the vitriol, I just read about the case of a nine year old from Nicaragua who was raped and denied abortion. She did get one in the end, but the comments from pro-lifers on this case are truly nauseating.
Here is the
story
and here is the update

Vorhis the Wolf

originaly by : the cave
Ethics has nothing to do with the subject. Who can claim the higher authority on what "should" be done? The woman forced to carry the fetus or the public at large who is forceing her to take on a 9 month responsibility at the very least. I would side with the rights of the mother over the opinions of the masses

Unless the fetus is an indepentdant organism it has no rights. Untill it can survive with out the womb it is just another organ. To force someone to carry a fetus against their will is the equvalent of slavery because you subjugate their freedom to be a self determining entity.

JerryM

I think that strictly speaking, at least in the ideal case, a fetus is more properly a commensal rather than a parasite. If a pregnant woman is healthy, well-nourished, and receives good pre-natal care, her overall health should be little affected by a normal pregnancy. Of course, not all cases are ideal...

But I fully agree that, legally, the rights of a fetus are subordinate to the rights of the mother. I think elective abortion should not be criminalized up to the point of natural viability--that is, where survival is reasonably possible without intensive, artificial life support.

dk

Seems to me all human beings as a social creatures dependend upon one another, therefore nobody has a right life. A mothers right of abortion is therefore a protected liberty. Men should encourage women to abort because it frees women up for sex, and in return women are free to work full time so they can at least claim the appearance of legal equality.

Vorhis the Wolf

I dont see how this would work. If I went off into the mountains to live alone and off of the land I would never be dependant on another human for the rest of my life. You are only as dependant on others as you let yourself be.

dk

If you went off into any of the many pristine parks in the US to live off the land you'd be arrested as a poacher, vagrant or a natural hazard to the environment and either jailed or sent to a nut house, probably both. Even if you weren’t I doubt you’d last 6 months. Even the Unibomber ventured into town to pick up supplies. We are social creatures especially under more primitive circumstances, and very, very, very few of us, alone, would last even a month in the wilderness. More to the point an infant, toddler, child alone would never survive in the wilderness without other people, despite the Tarzan myth. The premise holds about as much weight as a wet paper bag.

Vorhis the Wolf

Have you ever spent a few days out in the outdoors? It is so patheticly simple to survive with what mother nature provides that all I can do is stare at your post in amazement. It is even easier for a person to survive alone because you need to hunt less to provide for yourself than you would to provide for a few people. 1 rabbit,racoon or ground hog will feed a person for a day. Bigger animals provide more food ,which means you can focus on other things besides hunting. There are thousands of edible plants if meat isnt your thing. Large animal skins can be used for clothing. Small animal skins or tree bark can be used for shoes. With 5 deer skins you can make a warm and water proof shelter big enough for 1 person to fit comfortably. You can do the same thing with either tree bark or pine boughs. With an ax and a few hours you can cut yourself a small log hut. Water can be purified through a filter made of wood ashes and cloth. Cloth can be made by weaveing grass or animal hairs together . Pots and bowls can be made from bamboo,turtle shells, animal skulls or wood. Tools can be made with volcanic glass ,wood and animal bones. People dont need each other to survive. With just a little knowledge each of us can live practicaly in a vacume . The same knowledge that kept primitive people alive 1000 years ago will still work today. The only real problem is that most people are too mentaly and physicaly weak to endure a little hardship. They all expect that a magic pill or a new law will take care of them.

dk

Vorhis the Wolf: Have you ever spent a few days out in the outdoors?
dk: You bet, me and my 10lb 6 man tent, Coleman stove, cookery kit, case of beer, stores of food, tempered steel axe/shovel, lanterns, plenty of layered clothing, fuel oil, Jansport backpack, good to 20 below down sleeping bag (and cushion). I enjoy camping in the wilderness, but have no pretense about being a survivalist.
o
Vorhis the Wolf: It is so patheticly simple to survive with what mother nature provides that all I can do is stare at your post in amazement. It is even easier for a person to survive alone because you need to hunt less to provide for yourself than you would to provide for a few people. 1 rabbit,racoon or ground hog will feed a person for a day. Bigger animals provide more food ,which means you can focus on other things besides hunting.
dk: Really, I live in Colorado, and every year 30 or 40 people get lost in back country of the mountains. It’s not unusual for a search and rescue team to spend upwards of $200,000-500,000 for a single rescue, and the backcountry still claims 3-5, or more corpses every year, not including avalanches that take another 3-5.
o
Vorhis the Wolf: There are thousands of edible plants if meat isnt your thing. Large animal skins can be used for clothing. Small animal skins or tree bark can be used for shoes. With 5 deer skins you can make a warm and water proof shelter big enough for 1 person to fit comfortably. You can do the same thing with either tree bark or pine boughs. With an ax and a few hours you can cut yourself a small log hut. Water can be purified through a filter made of wood ashes and cloth. Cloth can be made by weaveing grass or animal hairs together . Pots and bowls can be made from bamboo,turtle shells, animal skulls or wood. Tools can be made with volcanic glass ,wood and animal bones. People dont need each other to survive. With just a little knowledge each of us can live practicaly in a vacume . The same knowledge that kept primitive people alive 1000 years ago will still work today. The only real problem is that most people are too mentaly and physicaly weak to endure a little hardship. They all expect that a magic pill or a new law will take care of them.
dk: Good point, its clear you live in the vacuum of a delusional mind. You must be talking about getting marooned, all alone, on Club Med. I hate to break it to you, but most pristine locations are pristine because they are inhospitable. Cotton, wool, polyesters, deer rifles and other essential equipment don’t grow on trees, even in densely populated forests.