Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jamie_L · 03-27-2002, 10:30 AM

This is not a debate about when a fetus is considered a "person" deserving of protection. That is amply covered in other threads.

I think even most pro-choice advocates (though perhaps not all) agree that at some point a fetus is a "person" in the legal sense deserving protection.

My question is, once a fetus is deserving of legal protection (whether that be day one or the third trimester), should the fetus receive other legal considerations?

Should a fetus-person be considered a citizen of the US? If it dies, should there be a death certificate? Should a fetus have a legal claim to the father's estate if the father dies?

This is something I've thought about. My first son was stillborn, and because he died a day prior to delivery rather than a day after, he virtually did not exist as far as the law is concerned. No death certificate. Family life insurance could not be called upon to pay for funeral expenses.

The abortion discussions of late got me to thinking: if the law considers a fetus a person with regards to the right to life, should the law make other considerations? Most laws don't consider a person to exist until after birth. If part of the law considers a fetus a person, should other parts of the law?

I'm not saying this would be practical, I'm just wondering. Any opinions?

Mods: I know this may not quite be appropriate for the "Morals" forum, but since the other abortion threads are here, this seems like a good place for this companion thread.

Jamie

bd-from-kg · 03-27-2002, 12:00 PM

Jamie_L:

Quote:

Should a fetus-person be considered a citizen of the US?

No. A baby isn’t a citizen; why should a fetus be?

Quote:

If it dies, should there be a death certificate?

Strictly a practical consideration. Death certificates are used to collect insurance, authorize probate proceedings, etc.

Quote:

Should a fetus have a legal claim to the father's estate if the father dies?

In many states the fetus does have such a claim. (Yes, this is an anomaly in the law; the fetus has rights to property but not to life.)

Quote:

Family life insurance could not be called upon to pay for funeral expenses.

The obligations of an insurer are spelled out explicitly in the policy. If you wanted a policy that paid funeral expenses for a fetus I should think that you could get one. You can insure against almost any contingency.

By the way, in doing a quick Internet search I came across the following regarding Islamic law in this matter <a href="http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/modern/fert.htm" target="_blank">here</a>:

Quote:

The question that naturally arises is whether the term "human life" includes the life of the fetus in the womb. According to Islamic jurisprudence it does. Islam accords the fetus the status of "incomplete zimma". Zimma is the legal regard that allows rights and duties, and that of the fetus is incomplete in the sense that it has rights but owes no duties. Some of these rights of the fetus are: (a) If a husband dies while his wife is pregnant, the law of inheritance recognizes the fetus as an inheritor if born alive. Other inheritors would receive their shares in accordance with the prescribed juridical proportions, but only after the share of the unborn is set aside to await its birth. (b) If a fetus is miscarried at any stage of pregnancy and shows signs of life such as a cough or movement and then it dies, such fetus has the right to inherit anything it was legally entitled to inherit from anyone who died after the beginning of the pregnancy.

Also:

Quote:

The question of the beginning of life has been discussed since early times, since the admissibility of abortion hinged around the existence of life (some old jurists permitted abortion before four months, others before seven weeks, of pregnancy, on the assumption that life had not started in the pregnancy.) Some ten centuries ago, a notable scholar called Al-Ghazali rightly described a phase of imperceptible life, before the phase that the mother could feel in the form of fetal quickening. Recent juridical congresses reviewed the subject taking into account the applications of modern technology, and concluded that the stage of an individual's life that can be called its beginning should satisfy ALL the following criteria: (1) it should be a clear and well-defined event; (2) it should exhibit the cardinal feature of life: growth; (3) if this growth is not interrupted, it will naturally lead up to the subsequent stages of life as we know them; (4) it contains the genetic pattern that is characteristic of the human race at large, and also of a unique specific individual; and (5) it is not preceded by any other phase which combines the first four. Obviously, these postulates refer to fertilization.

I found (3) especially interesting since it is very similar to the criterion I've proposed for “personhood”.

If nothing else, this shows that treating fetuses as “persons” is far from impractical. This is already done in countries with over a billion inhabitants.

pug846 · 03-27-2002, 12:41 PM

BD, would you favor putting a woman on trial for murder if she smoke/drank, etc. during her pregnancy and caused herself to have a mischarrige? Would you favor laws that made it illegal for women to drink during their pregnancy?

Pomp · 03-27-2002, 01:58 PM

bd-from-kg,

Quick nitpick. You said:

No. A baby isn�t a citizen; why should a fetus be?

From the <a href="http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/services/natz/citizen.htm" target="_blank">INS</a>:

Quote:

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.

Sojourner553 · 03-27-2002, 03:48 PM

To Jamie,

First to post my humblest sympathy for your miscarriage! A miscarriage is generally traumatic for the mother -- no matter when it occurs-- but one so close to term has to be especially heartbreaking...

Interesting to hear you ask legal questions--including questions related to insurance.

Both you and your fetus should have been covered by your health insurance. Because the fetus is not a legal person, this means you don't have TWO deductibles -- a positive for you.

As for life insurance, I thought you could insure anything -- pets, objects, anything -- it doesn't have to be a legal person. The issue would be that you would be paying high premiums -- because the mortality rates are so much higher for a fetus in a womb, than after it is born alive.

Again, may you find peace of mind -- and healthy babies the next time(s) around. No insurance can provide a substitute for that!

Sojourner

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

bd-from-kg · 03-27-2002, 03:58 PM

Pompous Bastard:

You're right. A baby is a citizen. Remarkable how many things one "just knows" turn out to be wrong.

Anyway, the 14th Amendment also answers the question of whether a fetus is a citizen: no. And it clearly states that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, etc., so citizenship would seem to be of little if any practical importance to a fetus.

Pomp · 03-27-2002, 04:30 PM

bd-from-kg,

Anyway, the 14th Amendment also answers the question of whether a fetus is a citizen: no. And it clearly states that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, etc., so citizenship would seem to be of little if any practical importance to a fetus.

I agree. Of course, I don't think that a fetus (or, at least, an early fetus) properly ought to be considered a person, either, but I've done this debate far too many times already, and I'm staying out of it this time around.

Jamie_L · 03-28-2002, 05:06 AM

On the insurance thing: Yeah, I'm sure if we wanted we could get insurance that covers this sort of thing, so it's kind of a different issue. But the "standard" family policies tend to follow the same logic as some of the laws I was pondering - no birth = no person. Getting that extra odd insurance coverage was not something we would have thought of, and probably would have cost a fair bit because of it's unique nature.

Thanks to those expressing sympathy. We have two healthy kids now.

Jamie

WJ · 03-28-2002, 06:21 AM

The fetus is a Being. Like us, it is a state of becoming. Both require time for their existence.

Hope that helps some...

Walrus

leonarde · 03-28-2002, 08:43 AM

This is a VERY interesting topic.
I would distinguish between two things:
1)what "should be" in terms of natural law.
2)what PRACTICALLY CAN be done in this regard.

By the above I mean: infants and small children
don't have the same de facto rights as adults do.
The law presumes they are being looked after.
A 1-month old child who technically owns property
after his/her parents die must be looked after by the executor of the estate and/or some other person(s). These are PRACTICAL matters which impinge on the findings of philosophy: how does one define a "person"?
We know from the experience of the Dred Scott case
regarding a runaway slave that such definitions of
personhood are determined by the ethos of a particular society at a particular time. Today most would find it barbaric that some no-doubt-
about-it human being could be ruled "property"
of another.
Perhaps in another hundred years our descendants
will find the Roe vs. Wade regime equally barbaric.

03-27-2002, 10:30 AM	#1
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	If a fetus is a "person", what else does that entail? This is not a debate about when a fetus is considered a "person" deserving of protection. That is amply covered in other threads. I think even most pro-choice advocates (though perhaps not all) agree that at some point a fetus is a "person" in the legal sense deserving protection. My question is, once a fetus is deserving of legal protection (whether that be day one or the third trimester), should the fetus receive other legal considerations? Should a fetus-person be considered a citizen of the US? If it dies, should there be a death certificate? Should a fetus have a legal claim to the father's estate if the father dies? This is something I've thought about. My first son was stillborn, and because he died a day prior to delivery rather than a day after, he virtually did not exist as far as the law is concerned. No death certificate. Family life insurance could not be called upon to pay for funeral expenses. The abortion discussions of late got me to thinking: if the law considers a fetus a person with regards to the right to life, should the law make other considerations? Most laws don't consider a person to exist until after birth. If part of the law considers a fetus a person, should other parts of the law? I'm not saying this would be practical, I'm just wondering. Any opinions? Mods: I know this may not quite be appropriate for the "Morals" forum, but since the other abortion threads are here, this seems like a good place for this companion thread. Jamie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2002, 12:41 PM	#3
pug846 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Somewhere Posts: 1,587	BD, would you favor putting a woman on trial for murder if she smoke/drank, etc. during her pregnancy and caused herself to have a mischarrige? Would you favor laws that made it illegal for women to drink during their pregnancy?

03-27-2002, 03:48 PM	#5
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	To Jamie, First to post my humblest sympathy for your miscarriage! A miscarriage is generally traumatic for the mother -- no matter when it occurs-- but one so close to term has to be especially heartbreaking... Interesting to hear you ask legal questions--including questions related to insurance. Both you and your fetus should have been covered by your health insurance. Because the fetus is not a legal person, this means you don't have TWO deductibles -- a positive for you. As for life insurance, I thought you could insure anything -- pets, objects, anything -- it doesn't have to be a legal person. The issue would be that you would be paying high premiums -- because the mortality rates are so much higher for a fetus in a womb, than after it is born alive. Again, may you find peace of mind -- and healthy babies the next time(s) around. No insurance can provide a substitute for that! Sojourner [ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

03-27-2002, 03:58 PM	#6
bd-from-kg Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: King George, VA Posts: 1,400	Pompous Bastard: You're right. A baby is a citizen. Remarkable how many things one "just knows" turn out to be wrong. Anyway, the 14th Amendment also answers the question of whether a fetus is a citizen: no. And it clearly states that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, etc., so citizenship would seem to be of little if any practical importance to a fetus.

03-27-2002, 04:30 PM	#7
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	bd-from-kg, Anyway, the 14th Amendment also answers the question of whether a fetus is a citizen: no. And it clearly states that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, etc., so citizenship would seem to be of little if any practical importance to a fetus. I agree. Of course, I don't think that a fetus (or, at least, an early fetus) properly ought to be considered a person, either, but I've done this debate far too many times already, and I'm staying out of it this time around.

03-28-2002, 05:06 AM	#8
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	On the insurance thing: Yeah, I'm sure if we wanted we could get insurance that covers this sort of thing, so it's kind of a different issue. But the "standard" family policies tend to follow the same logic as some of the laws I was pondering - no birth = no person. Getting that extra odd insurance coverage was not something we would have thought of, and probably would have cost a fair bit because of it's unique nature. Thanks to those expressing sympathy. We have two healthy kids now. Jamie

03-28-2002, 06:21 AM	#9
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	The fetus is a Being. Like us, it is a state of becoming. Both require time for their existence. Hope that helps some... Walrus

03-28-2002, 08:43 AM	#10
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	This is a VERY interesting topic. I would distinguish between two things: 1)what "should be" in terms of natural law. 2)what PRACTICALLY CAN be done in this regard. By the above I mean: infants and small children don't have the same de facto rights as adults do. The law presumes they are being looked after. A 1-month old child who technically owns property after his/her parents die must be looked after by the executor of the estate and/or some other person(s). These are PRACTICAL matters which impinge on the findings of philosophy: how does one define a "person"? We know from the experience of the Dred Scott case regarding a runaway slave that such definitions of personhood are determined by the ethos of a particular society at a particular time. Today most would find it barbaric that some no-doubt- about-it human being could be ruled "property" of another. Perhaps in another hundred years our descendants will find the Roe vs. Wade regime equally barbaric.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.