A question for pro choicers

Great Debates
1

In this OP “Screw the twins” - I can’t have a scar the OP talked about how wrong it was for the woman to endanger the life of one of the unborn twins because she was worried about having a scar. A few people mentioned that it was her body, and thus, her choice to make, completely ignoring the lives of the unborn twins. There was also a thread in response that that one, which I can’t find because I forget what it was titled, where the OP said how this was all about the woman’s constitutional right to refuse surgery if she wanted because it was her body. Again, ignoring the fact that refusing the surgery could, and did, lead to the death of one of the unborn twins. And similar points of view have been expressed in this thread as well Mom faces jail for murder for not having Caesarean (leading to baby death) which is about the same topic.

So my question is, why don’t you see the twins as human beings with the same rights as you and I have? Most of the time the argument as to why an unborn child isn’t a person is because either they’re not fully developed, or because they’re living off of the mother’s body, as opposed to breathing on their own and eating their own food.

Well, in this case, neither argument can be made. The baby is as developed as a new born, who’s lives people take seriously and actually seem to care about. Also, the twins are now through living off of the mother and are ready to start breathing and eating on their own. So, the only difference that remains is the unborn child’s (or in this case children’s) location.

Therefore, am I to assume that the logic behind your arguing that the unborn twins are not people, based solely on the fact that they were still in the womb?

Now I know that some of you will say that this has nothing to do with the twins, regardless of whether or not you view them as people, but with the fact that we generally can’t force people to do things against their will. However, most people here believe that your right to do, or not do something, can be challenged based on how it will affect someone else, or the old “The right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” In this case, the mother’s right to refuse surgery interferes with the unborn twins right to live.

But again, most or all of you don’t think that the unborn children’s right live exists. And again, is that really because despite the fact that they are now done developing in the womb (they now have the same functioning brain waves, heard beat, lung activity, etc. … as a newborn), and that they are now ready to breath and eat, and get rid of waste on their own, that despite all of that, because of the fact that they are still in the womb, that in and of itself invalidates them from being a person?

2

I still don’t know what I think about this subject, particularly since apparently we don’t have all of the information (I read that the mother already had 2 C-sections, so fear of a scar wasn’t the issue).

However, I don’t think anyone can be forced to have surgery to save someone else’s life. Should you be forced to give up a kidney if you have a rare bloodtype and are the only donor available for someone? I don’t think you should.

BTW, I think you should give up the kidney, just like I think (based on the evidence I know, at least) the woman should have had the C-section… but I don’t think it should be a legal issue. I’m willing to think of her as a somewhat dispicable person (but again, not until I know all of the information), but there are plenty of dispicable things that aren’t (and shouldn’t be) illegal.

Summary: Sure, in my opinion the almost-born baby was equivalent to a newborn… but that doesn’t give him the right to force someone else to have surgery.

3

And here I was believing that one had to be born to die. What will the Buddhists think?
I am completely pro-choice and am happy deciding what goes in and comes out of my body, especially my womb/genitals, but I know little to nothing about this case so I won’t comment.

4

From my point of view, the question of personhood is irrelevant to this issue (even though I don’t believe a fetus to be a person).

Even if the fetus was a fully self aware human, and somehow had the same mental faculties as an adult, I still think the mothers rights to control her own body trump those of whatever is living inside her at the moment.

5

Let me put it another way.

Let’s say my brother lay dying in the hospital from blood loss, and I was the only person who had compatable blood to give. Even though it would be a completely prickish thing to do, I’d still have the right to refuse to give him blood.

Same thing with a kidney. It would be the nice thing to do to donate my kidney to my next of kin if he needed one, but I can’t be forced to give it up against my will. If I don’t want surgical knives cutting me open, it is my right to refuse it even if that means somebody else won’t be able to survive because of that decision.

6

jharmon has what I would say is the “right” perspective on this issue, if there is a “right” perspective to be had. The OP, on the other hand, is framing their argument as a straw man.

This is a moral issue, not a legal one… moreover, it is not an issue of personhood, but rather an issue of whether any person should be forced by law to have surgery to save the life of another.

I would give up my kidneys, parts of my lungs, my blood, whatever it took to save the life of one of my children or my wife. It would be my choice to do so, however, and it would be wrong to have laws forcing me to do so. I see this issue as essentially the same thing.

7

Yes, this will seem like a very stupid question, but I’m asking anyway.

In the constitution, there is Freedom of Movement. Therefore, a mother can leave her baby in it’s crib, or wherever, and just leave the house and never come back, correct?

8

I must concede, that is a good point.

9

Actually, I see the point of it, and don’t think it’s particularly dumb… the wording isn’t perfect, but the question itself is valid.

Well, first, there’s isn’t any Freedom of Movement that I’m aware of. Of course, there isn’t a Freedom from Invasive Surgery, either, but that doesn’t make it any less real.

However, staying at the house and caring for the baby (or not) isn’t quite the same as having surgery (or not). Should a person be forced to have surgery to help other human beings? No. Should a person be forced to otherwise alter their behavior to help other human beings? In some cases, sure. In this case, laws against abandonment make perfect sense to me, while I still maintain that laws forcing someone to get surgery are a terrible idea.

10

Joel, do you truly believe that the law should require you to have surgery to save the life of another person? And if so, where do you draw the line?

11

That’s a very tricky question. There are times where you’re required to do things against your will, so that concept in and of itself is nothing new. And people have their rights limited or taken away all the time. But as to where to draw the line when it comes to surgery, I guess I’d have to say if it endangered your own health, or even has a possibility of endangering your own health, I’d draw the line.

12

Like jharmon I don’t really know where I stand on this issue, especially without knowing exactly what was said to the mother, and her level of intelligence. I believe the mother was morally wrong in that having decided to carry these babies to term their welfare should have been paramount, born or unborn. On the other hand, the fact that C-sections are so common does not negate the fact that it is surgery, which carries its own inherent risk to both mother and child.

13

Then you draw the line at all surgery, just like we do. All surgery has a possibility of endangering your health.

14

Ever since I read the article, I am wondering about this one.

Nobody should be forced to undergo surgery to save another life, as there are risks. As somebody said earlier, not giving blood to your brother would be about as immoral an act as I can imagine, but it would not be illegal. And you should not be forced to do so.

On the other hand, if a mother does not feed her baby because she goe sto the beauty parlor every day, and the baby dies of starvation, she clearly actively participated in the death of the baby. But we would probably not force the mother to undergo surgery to save the baby.
So, as much as I hate to admit it, I think she is not a murderer.

She is, however, the worst example of lifestyle motherhood that I have ever seen. When you get pregnant, and want to keep any kids, there is always a chance that you will have to undergo a C-section. If you are not willing to do so, you are lowest lifeform in my book - one that places your own lifestyle (not even life) above that of your children.

If I were the father of the kids, as much as I hate the tort system in place right now, I would (1) get a divorce, (2) get full custody over the living kid, (3) sue her in civil court for (a) her share of cost to raise the surviving baby, and (b) psych damages through the ying-yang.

This is just sad. As a father, my thoughts are with the father of the kiddos.

Dorfl

15

Because of the claim that this woman didn’t want surgery because of scars, it is easy to say that it was immoral. Despite that, C-sections can be very dangerous. I got this site from the other thread, but it applies here.

http://www.motherfriendly.org/news/Sep2003/c-sec-maternal-death.pdf

What if the reasoning had been because she was four times more likey to die? What if her own mother had died delivering her via C-section?

I agree that in this position, my potential child’s life would trump cosmetic concerns, but the fact remains that someone’s motives cannot determine their culpability.

16

One of the posts referred to starts with:

"This CNN article has all the facts. "

No, it does not. Obviously. There are no statements from the woman. We have only the prosecution’s statement that her decision was based on not wanting a scar (about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard). This is just trial by sensationalism.

Back to the OP.

Her body, her decision. A fetus is a fetus and a person is a person and the difference is birth, vaginal or caesarean. I don’t think that ‘invalidates them from being a person’; I think they are not people yet.

All that being said, my brain-stem reaction is that someone should tracked down whatever doctor scared that woman so damned brainless that she was terrified of the medical treatment that would have saved her babies, and string the miserable heartless piece of souless slime up in front of every court and hospital in this nation.
Like I said, no higher functions of the brain involved, just my gut reaction.

17

I don’t really think this is about having an operation to save “another person”.

That term implies a kind of distance, and makes it quite easy to say “well of course you shouldn’t, what next, government enforced organ “donation” to those they deem worthy?”.

This isn’t about “other people”, its about a mothers baby…you know, the one she has been carrying for the last x months.

As i said in the other thread, i don’t think this deserves the charge of murder, but i’m coming round to the idea that it might deserve some kind of charge on neglect, ALTHOUGH it isn’t quite the same as if the children were neglected once born, and, as said above, left to starve.

Addressing the fairly common idea that a child is just a non descript “fetus” untill it pops out, i find it hard to comprehend tbh.
The likenings to the child being like an organ, or like a “growth” or whatever, are wholly misplaced in my very humble opinion, quite simply because an organ, or growth (unless you are richard e grant), does not usually aquire personhood.

It is irrelevent that the person is not visable to you at, say, 4 months, because, left to run its course, that child will be visable soon enough.

But anyway :smiley:

Because of the difficulties experienced during birth, i suppose a fair number of babies never make it through at all.
The woman was warned that natural birth would probably kill one of both of her twins.
She made a choice, based on we don’t know what exactly.
She has the right to that choice; you dont have to do what the doctor says.

I doubt she would have been blamed if one of the kids had died during the csection though, which is interesting…

18

IANAL (yet), but at least in the UK, there are no positive duties, at all. Unless you caused the situation in the first place, you are under no duty to help, or rescue, another person from impending death. Continental Europe has some of these kinds of duties, though.

As for the US, with even more freedom of everything, I would be surprised to find that you had any positive duties.

19

There is entirely too much to consider regarding this situation for any of us, regardless of our stance on abortion, to make judgement calls about this woman or her choices.

Nowhere yet have I found information about how far into the pregnancy she was, what pre-existing conditions she had, previous pregnancies, education level, none of it.

My understanding while reading the CNN article (slow computer, would re-link, but I think we’ve all read it by now anyway) was that the girl first went months ago to the hospital because of suspected problems. Subsequently, she was told that one (or both) of the twins was in danger, and that she should have a Caesarian that could possibly save its life.

We never hear that it was the lack of C-section that caused the death of her unborn child. We heard that it might have been. The foetus could very well have expired long before the girl was told it was an emergency situation.

I delivered (through induced labor) a stillborn child at 26 weeks. No conclusions were ever definitively drawn as to the circumstances of his death. I had no idea it had gotten to that point, and neither did my doctor. The instant I found out that something was irreparably wrong, I went insane. Literally, physically, maniacally insane. Nothing made sense whatsoever. If the girl in the story is anything at all like me, she has my utmost sympathy.

As a woman who has lost a child, people are sometimes surprised to find that I am a pro-choice activist and supporter. Women’s bodies (or anyone else’s for that matter) are simply not up for discussion by anyone other than that woman, her loved ones, and her doctor. I feel that the media, as it is wont to do, has chosen the most sensational detail (or possibly allegation, the girl was never directly quoted as having said anything at all) and worked us all into a finger-pointing frenzy.

Not to theorize in the conspiracy way here, but it’s also ironic to me that during a campaign, a story like this breaks, with little detail, but one clear message…“Evil white-trash woman that made a choice about her own body…hate her, revile her, throw poo at her.”

20

So let’s say that you needed a kidney. Everyone is tested and only your sister is a match. However, for whatever reason, your sister was unwilling/unable to give it to you. You die. Should your sister go to jail? Should she be forced onto a sugeon’s table and cut open and her kidney taken from her? (Of course, you are dead by then, so what difference would it make?)

I am not saying that this mom made the same choice I would. I am not saying she is someone I would want to hang out with. But unless you are saying your sister should go to jail for not giving you a kidney, then how you can say she should go to jail for not having a C-section? To me, the point is the same. Her body; her call.