Republish: Fetus to have more rights than mother?
Fetus to have more rights than mother?
I have posted something similar to this before, but I thought I'd post again because I was questioned on the issue. Essentially, yes the fetus would have the right to infringe on the mother's rights in the same way a child or mentally retarded person would. This does not place the child above the mother, but rather takes into account that it can not take care of itself and thus has the right to not be neglected.
This right is extended to any person under the age of 18. The mother would be required to give nutrients and housing just as she is required to nourish and house her born child. The fact that in order to not neglect her child the woman must house it inside her body is inconsequential.
The right to not be neglected supersedes many rights of parents such as right to privacy and right to autonomy. There is not level of rights; they are all equal and equally protected. Thus there is no qualitative difference between giving up right to privacy and giving up right to bodily domain. I can not remove my child from my house and allow him to freeze, nor then would I be able to remove my child from my womb and allow him to die.
Until you prove that bodily domain is somehow more a right than any other right, I will not agree that a mother can remove her child and allow him to die simply for enacting its right to not be neglected.
In regards to McFall V. Shimp: The case is centered on a man whose body has failed him. He is asking that his cousin give him something that has "gone out" so to speak in his body. His cousin is under no obligation to provide him replacement parts. Similarly, a mother is under no obligation to provide a kidney for her son if his happens to fail.
However, a pregnancy is a different situation all together. The fetus' body has not given out or failed. There is no need for replacement parts. The fetus is asking only for basic housing and nutrients that only the mother can provide. Taking away the womb is not akin to not giving a kidney, but rather taking away the shelter for a one year old because he is infringing on your privacy. Obviously, this type of neglect would not be tolerated, even though the child is obviously infringing on your rights.
I know I was a bit repetitive but I was trying to bring the argument around full circle. The general idea is this. Yes the fetus would have more rights than an adult in the same way that any child has more rights than an adult because of the issue of neglect. Giving a fetus personhood would put them on the same line as a child or mentally handicapped person. If an ape can gain this designation (as is trying to happen in Spain) I do not see why an unborn child can not.
I have posted something similar to this before, but I thought I'd post again because I was questioned on the issue. Essentially, yes the fetus would have the right to infringe on the mother's rights in the same way a child or mentally retarded person would. This does not place the child above the mother, but rather takes into account that it can not take care of itself and thus has the right to not be neglected.
This right is extended to any person under the age of 18. The mother would be required to give nutrients and housing just as she is required to nourish and house her born child. The fact that in order to not neglect her child the woman must house it inside her body is inconsequential.
The right to not be neglected supersedes many rights of parents such as right to privacy and right to autonomy. There is not level of rights; they are all equal and equally protected. Thus there is no qualitative difference between giving up right to privacy and giving up right to bodily domain. I can not remove my child from my house and allow him to freeze, nor then would I be able to remove my child from my womb and allow him to die.
Until you prove that bodily domain is somehow more a right than any other right, I will not agree that a mother can remove her child and allow him to die simply for enacting its right to not be neglected.
In regards to McFall V. Shimp: The case is centered on a man whose body has failed him. He is asking that his cousin give him something that has "gone out" so to speak in his body. His cousin is under no obligation to provide him replacement parts. Similarly, a mother is under no obligation to provide a kidney for her son if his happens to fail.
However, a pregnancy is a different situation all together. The fetus' body has not given out or failed. There is no need for replacement parts. The fetus is asking only for basic housing and nutrients that only the mother can provide. Taking away the womb is not akin to not giving a kidney, but rather taking away the shelter for a one year old because he is infringing on your privacy. Obviously, this type of neglect would not be tolerated, even though the child is obviously infringing on your rights.
I know I was a bit repetitive but I was trying to bring the argument around full circle. The general idea is this. Yes the fetus would have more rights than an adult in the same way that any child has more rights than an adult because of the issue of neglect. Giving a fetus personhood would put them on the same line as a child or mentally handicapped person. If an ape can gain this designation (as is trying to happen in Spain) I do not see why an unborn child can not.
Posted by Lauren at
7:45 PM
10 Comments:
Wow lady, you are so backwards. It is our body and our choice. People like you are what is wrong with the world.
By
Anonymous, at 9:11 AM
Wow, anonymous, you are so trite. If all you can use to refute Lauren's argument is some exhausted mantra/propaganda, perhaps you shouldn't respond at all.
To stoop to your level (where you might be able to understand me)People like you (who can't form an argument and support the slaughter of unborn people) are what's wrong with the world.
By
JacqueFromTexas, at 9:25 AM
I'm backwards how exactly? I'd welcome discussion on bodily domain but name calling isn't a very effective means of effecting change.
By
Lauren, at 12:02 PM
Sorry for my shallow response. People who insult strangers because they can't create an effective argument tend to irk me...
By
JacqueFromTexas, at 1:48 PM
No problem. It really is irritating.
By
Lauren, at 2:38 PM
I admit, I have a big problem with the whole concept of fetal rights. I don`t see how they could ever be enacted without also saying that pregnant women shouldn`t do anything the mother of a born kid shouldn`t do, either. For instance, I`d get a arrested if I put wine in my baby`s bottle -- why wouldn`t I get arrested for drinking wine while pregnant? I`d get arrested for failing to feed my kids -- why wouldn`t a pregnant woman who refuses to eat enough be locked p for treatment? I would get arrested if I took a newborn baby white-water kyaking -- how about the time I did went kayaking after I found out I was pregnant? Should the father of a miscarried fetus be able to sue the mother for loss, if he thinks her negligence led to the death of his child?
Obviously, if a woman threatens to harm her born children, the authorities would take the children away from her. What about a woman "at risk" of abortion -- such as a woman who is known to be upset and angry that she`s pregnant? Should she be taken into protective custody to prevent her from commiting feticide?
By
L., at 4:11 PM
As far as the drinking smoking ect. Some states already have laws that crimilize such behavior.
In regards to certain other activites that are not directly abuse but perhaps not in the best interest of the child (like white water rafting) I think the "punishment" if you will should match what it would if you took an infant on the same adventure. Most likely an investigation by CPS or something of the sort. I don't really see the difference or issue with such investigation.
As far as a woman at risk for miscarriage, there's not a whole lot that can be done in that respect. That's what I find so interesting about people who claim we're trying to "force" women to stay pregnant. There's nothing anyone can in most cases if a woman is bound to miscarry.
As far as the extra stree ect. of such situation, I think support of pregnant women would go alot further than instituionalizing them. There is alot of middle ground before we get to locking all pregnant women up in maternaty cells for 9 months.
We don't lock all parents in tiny rooms with their children to insure they aren't doing anything to harm their children, so I don't see why we would do this to pregnant women.
By
Lauren, at 5:28 PM
Do some states really criminalize smoking and drinking? I`ve never heard of that -- especially smoking. I`m a non-smoker myself, and I`m all for helping pregnant women kick the habit, but I would certainly oppose any laws against pregnant women smoking. Who would decide how much was too much? Would even part of one cigarette a day be criminal? Two or more? A pack or more?
And drinking -- I drank wine in two out of my three fullterm pregnancies. I would certainly fight against those kinds of laws, too, though I`m sure they`re well-intended.
And as for other behavior, who`s to say? My doctor in Tokyo explicitly told me to stop riding my bicycle when I was pregnant. If I had not listened to her, and lost the baby as a result of a bike traffic accident, would I be liable?
If a woman`s doctor puts her on bedrest and she doesn`t comply, and ends up losing her baby, is she criminally negligent?
And what about women like me -- "at risk" of aborting? I never want to go through another pregnancy, EVER, and I have told my husband this many times. If he finds a positive pregnancy test in the bathroom garbage, should he be able to have me legally confined until I deliver, to prevent me from acting on my previously stated intentions?
I don`t see easy answers to any of these questions.
By
L., at 6:10 PM
Sorry I thought you meant at risk for losing the pregnancy to miscarriage and that causing additional stress.
As far as women "at risk" for abortion, I would say there needs to be a strong support system in place to help those women. And it would be alot of women.
I think something similar to mentoring programs for at risk youth could work. Something that enabled women struggling with an unwanted pregnancy to talk to someone who had been there and have someone who understands and is there to help make the situation as easy as possible.
Putting women in jail for being "at risk" would be like putting a person in jail for being at risk for committing murder, it just doesn't make sense.
As far as the woman not following doctors orders, I suppose that depends on the laws governing born children's parents not following doctors orders. I really don't know what happens if your son has an infection for example and you decide for whatever reason not to treat it.
I know there have been instances of this type of situation going to court but I don't remember the outcome.
As far as perhaps a doctor forcing you to go on bedrest, I suppose that's possible considering a doctor can already perform an abortion on you without your consent in Texas as long as they feel it is in the best interest of your life.
For the most part though, I think the medial community and the law would recognize that miscarriage is inevitible and would only intervene if there was a serious and obviously neglegent or abusive act.
As far as the laws regarding prenatal substance abuse, I believe that it is a South Dakota statute that criminilizes drug use or alcohol during the last trimester of pregnancy. Again, this is from memory so I might have the details wrong.
By
Lauren, at 6:30 PM
In Wisconsin, a pregnant woman can be committed against her will if authorities believe her alcohol abuse could harm her unborn child.
In South Dakota, pregnant women who use drugs or drink alcohol can be committed to treatment centers for THE DURATION OF THEIR PREGNANCIES -- nothing about trimesters, apparently.
As a mother who drank alcohol and caffeine and didn`t always follow my doctors` orders while pregnant, I find those laws rather chilling.
Your "mentoring" idea for women "at risk" of abortion is actually a good one, and might work well for some women, especially younger ones in crisis.
However, I`m not sure it would have much effect on older women like me, who are determined to do all we can, short of sexual abstinence (though I would even do that, if my husband were willing!) to avoid carrying another pregnancy to term.
By
L., at 4:23 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home