I think a desire to live is intrinsic to all living creatures whether they can express that desire or not and that life itself has intrinsic value.
An ability to comprehend worth, and a need to fight, would for me at least be indicative of that worth. A baby, or intellectually stunted human, may still understand pain and harbour a dislike for it; understand that there are things which they like and do not like, and respond to those things. Certainly as Sarahfeena points out, small babies do not understand fully their worth nor indeed totally what “I” in their case is, but they are still able to to register things going on around them, to react to them, and to, in whatever small way, feel good or bad about them.
To try and put it a bit more clearly; you brought up the idea that something may have an inability to express something. What I deem as not having worth is not something that cannot express itself, but something that has nothing to express even if it could do so.
They are also legally able to pass that obligation on to someone else (either another person or the state) through adoption.
There are a lot of what-ifs here and grey areas in the contract idea. For example, what if the woman already has a minor child and carrying another child to term puts her in mortal danger? Wouldn’t that mean that she would be in breach of her first contract to her first child? Taking that argument to a huge extreme, would putting that contract in danger by considering another child be considered a potential breach? And if she should get pregnant, which contract trumps which?
And what about other contracts the woman might have had, such as a marriage contract? Although it’s not explicitly stated on most marriage contracts that a woman cannot withhold her body, isn’t it implied that they would have sex and, in most traditional marriages, children? Should the woman simply stop having sex with her husband to avoid possible breaches of contract should she get pregnant, whether on purpose or because of contraceptive malfunction? Isn’t that in and of itself a breach of a contract, implied or explicit?
Plus, doesn’t the woman have a responsibility to remain healthy in order to care for any children? If having a kid could inhibit her ability to care for herself or her child, she’s shirked her responsibility and in extreme circumstances shorted the first kid a mother.
I’m currently in the position of deciding whether or not to have a second kid based on some scary unforeseen complications from having my first, which made me physically unable to take care of my child for a couple of weeks afterward and could theoretically have resulted in permanent brain damage or death. Whether or not I would have the same problems if I had another is unknown. It’s considered unlikely, but my condition was so rare there’s very little available research on it. The available research swings anywhere from 1-2% likelihood of it happening again to 50-60%.
But while I’m working out this decision with my doctor and my husband, what would happen if I did get pregnant on accident? Would I have it? From the gut I’d say yes. Although I’m pro-choice, I don’t want an abortion and I would love to have another child. But should I be forced to have it, to have that decision stripped from me and my husband? I have obligations to my husband and son and myself, too, not just to the potential life that made it past my birth control pill. The thought of someone else I’ve never met without any medical qualifications making that decision for me and my husband enrages and saddens me. So what do I do to prevent this from happening? Never have sex with my husband again on the off chance something might happen? Wait 'til menopause? Cut my losses and see what happens? That’s for me and family to decide, not someone else.
For what it’s worth, I’m leaving my son out of the decision-making process because he’s 2 and 1/2. He wants a sibling, but it’s not fair, in my opinion, to involve him in such a discussion.
Parents can give up their legal rights to their children at all time. If women have the legal obligation to carry a fetus to term, isn’t abortion the legal way to cancel it?
In Davis v. Davis, the court ruled that Mr. Davis, who had willingly supplied the sperm that was used to conceive in vitro with his legal wife’s eggs, the court ruled that he could not forced to become a father until “pregnancy” had taken place. How is a fertilized egg any different in or out of a woman’s uterus?
The idea that birth is a natural consequence of sex, and that even taking all available precautions to avoid it doesn’t and shouldn’t absolve one from the responsibility to be ready to have a child every single time one has heterosexual intercourse is one with no argument that supports it which doesn’t stem from religion.
I think you are right that desire to live is an instinct. Whether or not that desire is understood by the living creature is another thing. I would say the vast majority of living things do not have that understanding, including infant humans. I agree with you that life has an intrinsic value that does not depend on whether the organism has that understanding or not.
Worse case scenerio: If a woman on welfare has ten children and has another pregnancy which would force her to stay in bed for seven months in order to deliver a child with a condition that would make it die within a month after it is born alive, should she be forced to continue the pregnancy?
Or, a more likely case: A woman has in vitro and four eggs survive. The doctors tell her it would be better to abort two of the embryos to give the other two a chance to survive. She only has the money for one treatment, and the doctors tell her all four embryos might not make it, but two probably will? What then?
Well, Annie, let’s put it this way.
We’re never going to have anti-abortion laws as strict as pro-life activists want. It’s not going to happen. We’re never going to ban certain types of abortion, and we’re never going to have draconian punishments for a pregnant woman who has an abortion, and we’re never going to have a situation where illegal or quasi-legal abortion (like having your abortion in Canada) aren’t possible to obtain, especially since drugs such as RU-486 now exist. Any change to our abortion laws is going to bump up against the reality that although the majority of Americans are pro-life, the majority of Americans are also pro-choice.
The only way we’re going to have Ceaucescu-style abortion laws in this country is if democracy is abandoned, or some sort of religious revival converts overwhelming majorities to the pro-life viewpoint. Despite the pants-pissing by some people on this message board, neither is very likely. And if the United States degenerates into a theocratic dictatorship, draconian anti-abortion laws are gonna be the least of our problems.
The trouble with these abortion arguments is that so many people want to start from first premises. They want to have a few moral axioms assented to, and then the rest of our laws will flow forth from the consequences of assent to those axioms. Except the rest of us who live here in the real world don’t want to live that way. We’re trying to find laws that provide us with safety, security, happiness, and provide for the common welfare. If we assent to a moral axiom and then find it leads to problematic consequences we don’t blithely charge ahead into disaster, instead we tend to either decide that the moral axiom must not have been a good one, or more commonly live with the ambiguity.
Just because a 6 month fetus has a brain doesn’t mean we must therefore decide that anyone who kills that fetus is a murderer who deserves death row. United States law doesn’t protect all human life. If I murder someone in Canada, American law can’t touch me. If I shoot someone threatening me with deadly force, I have a defense against murder charges. If my brakes fail and I plow into a crowd of orphans, I might be charged with manslaughter depending on exactly what caused those brakes to fail, but I’m not going to be charged with murder.
And so on. Just because we realize that criminalizing abortion turns out to be unworkable, that doesn’t mean we must therefore deny the humanity of a baby the day before it is born. Or the month before it is born. Or two months. Or three months. Or even 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 months. Even if we decide that a fetus has no more rights than an excised human kidney that doesn’t mean we must treat that fetus as if it were a garden hose. We have rules about what can be done with human kidneys–they can’t be sold, you can’t just scoop them out of people for no reason, and so on.
Bottom line, it turns out in real life that draconian anti-abortion laws are unworkable and will cause more problems than they solve, and won’t do much to prevent abortion anyway. And therefore, even if we decide fetuses have some sort of rights it doesn’t follow that we must, MUST do something about it. After all, the people being killed in Darfur have human rights, yet we’re doing precisely nothing about it other than shake our heads about what a pity it all is.
I assert that a fetus is a human being. It shares humanity with us. And like Cecil said, so what? What plan of action should I embark upon if I make this declaration? Not much except to counsel people not to engage in unprotected vaginal intercourse unless they’re either on board with raising any potential kids, or aborting those potential kids. Pay attention to what you’re doing. Actions have consequences, and you’re going to have to live with those consequences. But if you don’t want to live with the consequences there are ways to not get in that situation in the first place.
You can’t get into a car accident if you don’t get into a car. But do people usually get into their cars with the desire to get into an accident? (There are people who do, but they do so with full intention of wrecking their car.)
If they get into an accident, and they were wearing their seat belt and their airbag was successfully deployed, but they were still injured, should they not receive medical treatment?
It’s perfetly simple: It is not a proven fact that a fetus is a person. Therefore people are free–remember freedom?–to susbtitute their own beliefs or opinions one way or another. But in lieu of facts, one person’s beliefs cannot justly be imposed upon another in their private lives.
An estimated 50 percent abortions provided are to women with at least one child. So, really, they are thinking of the children (won’t somebody please?), as well as themselves. The living, breathing children who will face direct consequences as a result of a pregnant mother and then another sibling. How callous.
Great. So if a woman is raped, it’s because she was “asking for it” by wearing a revealing outfit/walking alone/after dark/in a bad neighborhood, etc. etc. And then if she gets pregnant, it’s because she was “asking for it” by having sex.
The similarities between rape and unwanted pregnancy are amazing.
Even if you label abortion as killing or murder, society allows, encourages, and even mandates, killing. So unqualified killing cannot be wrong per se.
The state, thru the courts, “murders” some criminals.
“Murder” is OK for self-defense.
The military teaches how to “murder” and requires it under specified circumstances. You can even get a medal for it.
Euthanasia of animals or people is “murder”.
If you spray for bugs, you are commiting “murder”.
Some people say raising chickens to eat is “murder”.
So what we need to do is define the limits of killing – when it is acceptable, when not. Somewhere between the extremes there has to be a reasonable middle ground, one based less on emotions and more on science. One that is based not on a religious argument, but takes into consideration factors such as the health or economic condition of the mother and the development stage of a fetus.
Whoa…think you are going a bit off the rails here.
I have a girlfriend and we, like most couples, enjoy our intimate moments. If she got pregnant it would be a complete accident and something neither of us wants.
I cannot imagine in any fashion how you could equate that to rape. I guarantee my GF would not view it like that.
Snarkiness about freedom aside, you are correct. The problem is that likewise it is not a proven fact that fetuses aren’t people, and indeed I suspect there are people who believe their personhood to be fact. I could just as easily say that in lieu of the fact that fetuses aren’t people, the beliefs of a mother cannot justly be imposed upon the fetus. That in lieu of proof otherwise, we cannot use the belief that a fetus is not a person, or even the lack of belief that a fetus is a person, to justify imposing that belief upon the life of a fetus. Same argument, works both ways.
Not quite - we make sure that non-custodial parents have a financial obligation to their children in the case where a custodial parent wants to raise them. i.e. if my husband divorces me, he’ll pay child support. Although personally, I disagree with this and think its an infringement of rights. I think that if a guy knocks up a woman, he should be able to say “you are on your own.” That, however, would leave a lot of kids hurting.
However, I think there is a huge difference between asking someone to provide financial support and bearing a physical responsibility - Maia’s post. When we start requiring bone marrow registration, organ donation, et. al. - then and only then will we have a leg to stand on in requiring a woman to carry a child to term.
No it doesn’t. We’ve been through this earlier I think.
You cannot prove a negative. Not logically anyway in this case. If someone wants to restrict other people’s rights then it is incumbent upon them to prove that (in this case) a fetus is a person.
In the majority of cases, he can say “you are on your own.” He just can’t say that to the child. That’s why it is called child support, not knocked-up-ex-partner support.
I may be misreading, but I think she meant the similarities are between the rapist and the fetus, not the rapist and the man who impregnated her. By being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term another person, in this case the fetus, is causing possible physical harm to her body without her consent for which she will have to suffer the repercussions.