Two thoughts about a woman's right over her own body

[Vaderesque]

If a woman’s right over her own body can be trumped by the rights of another (potential) human, then the following two things occur to me:

1. If I, the only known possible donor of a blood type that would save someone else’s life, refuse to make a donation, could I be justifiably forced to give blood because their right to life trumps my right to physical autonomy?

2. Could the courts force pregnant women to not smoke? Does the right of an unborn baby extend to having the best chance of a healthy life, or merely a chance to be born?

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with anything here, just trying to explore the limits of the arguments.

When does human life begin (revisited)?

[Rapier42]

@Vaderesque

If a woman’s right over her own body can be trumped by the rights of another (potential) human, then the following two things occur to me:

1. If I, the only known possible donor of a blood type that would save someone else’s life, refuse to make a donation, could I be justifiably forced to give blood because their right to life trumps my right to physical autonomy?

Probably not. I would hope not, because of the legal precedent that would set. But this analogy only applies to the current womans-rights argument if you stipulate that you, the only known possible donor, chose to do something that gave you that particular blood type. If you are involuntarily the only known donor, well, thats a different kettle of fish.

2. Could the courts force pregnant women to not smoke? Does the right of an unborn baby extend to having the best chance of a healthy life, or merely a chance to be born?

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with anything here, just trying to explore the limits of the arguments.
When does human life begin (revisited)? - The Straight Dope

This is begging the question (I think… I’m never sure if I’m using that right). If you are of the opinion that an unborn infant has the rights of a born infant, then yes. If you don’t think so, then obviously not. I don’t see where this adds anything new to the debate.

[SeanArenas]

@Vaderesque

1. If I, the only known possible donor of a blood type that would save someone else’s life, refuse to make a donation, could I be justifiably forced to give blood because their right to life trumps my right to physical autonomy?

Wasn’t there a Star Trek The Next Generation episode about this? Worf could give some of his cellular tissue to save someone’s life, but didn’t want to on moral grounds, and Picard had to consider whether or not he could or should force Worf to do it?

[ZenBeam]

@Vaderesque

2. Could the courts force pregnant women to not smoke? Does the right of an unborn baby extend to having the best chance of a healthy life, or merely a chance to be born?

Courts have already seen these cases. Alcohol, not tobacco, but Court Rules New York State Child Endangering Law May Not Be Used To Punish Pregnant Woman for Health Problems

@link

A Warren County, New York, judge yesterday dismissed charges against a woman arrested on two counts of child endangering based on allegations that she consumed alcohol in her 35th week of pregnancy.

In dismissing the charges, Judge David B. Krogman, ruling as a city court judge in Glens Falls, New York, held that the attempt to base a child endangering charge against Stacey Gilligan on the allegation that “at the time of the birth she knowingly fed her blood” to her baby through the umbilical cord was “without legal basis.” Ms. Gilligan was arrested and charged with two counts of child endangering in September of 2003.

A Google search for alcohol pregnant endangering turned that and other cases up.

[1010011010]

Seems like there should be some case law generated by the Jehovah’s Witnesses on a topic similar to this. I’m reasonably sure you have no legal obligation to do harm to yourself in order to help someone else, even something as simple as donating blood, no matter what the circumstances.

[Strassia]

@Vaderesque

If a woman’s right over her own body can be trumped by the rights of another (potential) human, then the following two things occur to me:

1. If I, the only known possible donor of a blood type that would save someone else’s life, refuse to make a donation, could I be justifiably forced to give blood because their right to life trumps my right to physical autonomy?

This is not exactly identical because their is a difference between pacify and active. You may not be forced to give blood, just as you cannot be forced to give CPR even if you are the only one who could save someone. However, you the law can seek to stop you from actively killing someone (murder is illegal). Therefore, it would not be that big a stretch to say a woman who refused to take medicine that would save a fetus is withing the law, but one that to an abortifactant chemical is not.

2. Could the courts force pregnant women to not smoke? Does the right of an unborn baby extend to having the best chance of a healthy life, or merely a chance to be born?

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with anything here, just trying to explore the limits of the arguments.
When does human life begin (revisited)? - The Straight Dope

[BigT]

@SeanArenas

Wasn’t there a Star Trek The Next Generation episode about this? Worf could give some of his cellular tissue to save someone’s life, but didn’t want to on moral grounds, and Picard had to consider whether or not he could or should force Worf to do it?

Yes. The episode you are referring to is The Enemy. The link I provided doesn’t mention Picard’s involvement, but I can’t imagine a TNG episode without Picard’s pontificating.

The episode clearly painted Worf’s choice as being the wrong one, however, as it was set up by racial (well, special) prejudice.

[SeanArenas]

@BigT

Yes. The episode you are referring to is The Enemy. The link I provided doesn’t mention Picard’s involvement, but I can’t imagine a TNG episode without Picard’s pontificating.

The episode clearly painted Worf’s choice as being the wrong one, however, as it was set up by racial (well, special) prejudice.

One of the biggest reasons I love Science Fiction is that it allows you to consider moral issues like this without being involved in the decision yourself (involving your personal history, races or religions you’re familiar with, etc.).

[Annie-Xmas]

If a woman shoots another woman and destroys her uterus, should she be forced to carry the woman’s child?

[ZenBeam]

@Annie-Xmas

If a woman shoots another woman and destroys her uterus, should she be forced to carry the woman’s child?

If the women both agree, should a judge be allowed to require this as a condition of probation?

[SiXSwordS]

@Rapier42

This is begging the question (I think… I’m never sure if I’m using that right).

FWIW

Because of possible confusion over what you actually mean, and inevitable condemnation from people who have taken the trouble to find out what it once did mean, it’s better avoided altogether.

[Gregor]

So was Scott Peters guilty of one murder, or two?

The courts said two, but how can this be, since the unborn child, er, fetus, was not a person?

[John_W.Kennedy]

There are several cases where a fetus does legally count as a kinda-sorta person. This is one. Another is in inheritances, where you have to wait and see whether the kid is born or not before divvying up the estate.

Law is not completely logical. It’s not supposed to be. As long as human beings are the way they are, it mustn’t be.