The way you describe it, and I admit I honestly do not know the law, seems like an infant born in the hospital has no legal guardian and thus, neither the mother nor the hospital is responsible for it. Is that right? If so, the infant could technically be neglected and die and nobody would suffer legal consequences?
You are correct that prenatal care is not required of the mother. She can smoke and drink and pretty much behave however she wants. If she intends on keeping the baby and knows the consequences, I would argue that such behavior would be highly immoral. I’m not advocating laws to regulate it, though.
As for the person with kidney failure, the situation is very vague. Is this person an otherwise fully functioning adult? You’re right, if he cannot obtain proper healthcare he will die. But that’s kind of his responsibility. As an aside, I know for a fact that illegal aliens in the US can and do receive dialysis, free of charge (to them). It may be a case by case scenario, but I know of one instance.
A similar example to the person with kidney failure might be a mentally disabled individual who could not care for himself. This person, left unattended, would eventually die for lack of ability to obtain food, shelter, etc. If nobody wants the responsibility that comes with him, should we just kick him out into the streets and wish him luck?
I wholeheartedly welcome correction on this issue. No one in the US has the right to health care. If a woman 7 months pregnant shows up at a hospital without insurance, what is their obligation to her? If she delivers 2 months early, what is their obligation to her and the newborn now in the NICU? A day in an NICU costs about $5000. 11 days in an NICU and a c-section can cost as much as $80,000.
Who is responsible for deciding how many life saving operations the premie will receive? Who is picking up the tab? My guess is that upon being abandoned some state organization will be responsible, if such a thing is funded. Maybe a church or private organization will pay for it.
Okay, that’s all that needs to be said. Immoral and illegal are two entirely different things. We aren’t willing to go so far as to legislate prenatal behavior, nor are will willing to fund prenatal medical care. Technically speaking, the woman can ingest any legal substance she wants, without any regard for the fetus.
So where is his right to life? How is a person in kidney failure supposed to afford health care? He’s got a pre-existing condition. How is he supposed to find a job with benefits when he’s about to die?
Even if he can get dialysis, he still needs a kidney. Where is his right to life? Why isn’t a kidney (and the operation, and the immunosuppressants) provided for him?
Then answer is that rights are passive. No one has to provide him health care, or a kidney, or a transplant team, or the life time of medications he’ll require. As I said, dead people can refuse to donate their kidneys. Society doesn’t give a fuck about the right to life.
We can back this up a few years and consider a fetus with a congenital heart defect. An in utero transplant will save its life. But we’re back to the same problem. Who is going to pay for it? Who is going to provide the heart? That fetus has no right to life beyond passive measures.
That person has a right to life, and that’s it. He has no right to food, shelter, or medical attention. If no one will take responsibility for him (or be willing to pay taxes) he dies. It’s as simple as that.
ETA To add one more piece of wood to the fire, in some cases health insurers consider a new born to be human 3 days after birth. A baby born with a condition can then be excluded, and left to die.
emacknight, your examples of other people whose right to life are squashed, by some method or another are compelling. But is that your basis for saying an unborn human also should not have a right to life? Or is the heart of the matter that you don’t think an unborn human is a human at all? Because if you deny that the fetus is human at all, then ok, our opinions on who deserves what rights differ and there ends the conversation.
On the other hand, if you acknowledge that the fetus’ right to life is infringed upon by abortion, but you’re morally ok with it because of the comparison with these other scenarios you describe, it’s a different story.
Good thing then that I said: “Not that it has much meaning here anyway…”
I will note you do not have a contract with your children (born ones) but are legally responsible for them in a number of ways. A legal obligation can exist without a contract.
What is it with you and organs?
The analogy is fine as far as it goes but like most analogies they do not track directly to the thing they are comparing. I am fine with analogies…love them even but when you start picking on the flaw in the analogy to support your case it doesn’t make much sense.
Yes, if you donate a lobe of liver to someone it is out of your body. There is no other way to give them use of it in this case. So you cannot jump up and down and say, “But but but it’s not in my body!”
Fine. So what? That’s how it works. That’s how it has to work.
The baby is inside the woman. That is how our biology works and there is no getting around it.
You are arguing to be allowed to kill someone. Not through neglect or choosing not to provide support but to actively go in and kill a human being (do you need details of how a late term abortion is performed?). If not kill then you seem content to get the baby out and saddle it with a variety of injuries that can accrue from being born prematurely and could possibly have a lifetime of effects. What’s more you are content to saddle the state with the support of the child which means you are making me support the child. I doubt a premature child with extensive health issues get snapped up by people waiting to adopt them. Child should have a wonderful life (sarcasm alert).
Except that there is, which is why we’re having this discussion.
And you’re somehow okay with my body being subjugated not only to someone else’s health, but to your financial comfort. Oh yeah, that’s the moral high ground.
I bring up these examples to show that the “right to life” is passive: you can be alive, but no one is obligated to give you anything to keep you alive.
With that in mind, consider that the fetus is inside the woman. It can have a right to life, so far as other people are not allow to harm it. You cannot punch a pregnant woman in the gut. Nor can you perform an abortion against her wishes.
Any right to life a fetus has is at the discretion of the host. If she does not want to continue to provide for it, there is nothing to compel her.
Morally, she may feel an obligation. Legally there is nothing. Death is the unfortunate consequence of her refusing to provide life sustaining nutrients. That isn’t a pleasant statement, but it’s the unfortunate result of the world we live in.
So as Whack-a-Mole likes to ask, what changes 10 seconds after birth from 10 seconds before birth? Nothing. Society does give a shit afterwords, so why should it care before? Society isn’t willing to grant the mother any special right to life, which I feel morally compelled to offer (see Health Care, Canada). So why would it offer a fetus anything more?
What is unique about a pregnant woman that she should have to provide life support to a fetus, but she does NOT have to provide life support to any one else. Either we give everyone that freedom to choose, or no one.
You can gestate a baby in a box? I must’ve missed something in biology class.
The woman makes the choice to carry the baby to term at the outset. She can opt to abort if she wants. I am 100% ok with that and fight anything to restrict that choice for the woman (parental notification laws are particularly odious).
If the woman chooses to carry the baby to term some obligations adhere to that.
At some point she may decide she does not want those obligations anymore. There is a cost associated with that:
1a) Kill another human being. Literally.
or…
1b) Deliver a premature baby and potentially inflict grievous harm that can stay with the child for life. To wit:
If 1b happens fob the child off on the state.
This is all a result of the woman’s choices. In your world she bears no responsibility for any of that. She can dump her problem and leave it to others including (possibly) sentencing another human to a life time of miserable problems. You are so in horror of someone making a choice for the woman you are utterly ignoring the very real impact the woman’s choices can have on others.
You are apparently ok with that. Deflecting that what I am on about is my financial well being doesn’t change any of it but I guess you have to because it would be hard to sleep at night if you consider anything but the narrow issue of the woman.
You seem to have missed a lot in biology class, and in English class too. Maybe re-read what she wrote to see if you can figure out what you missed.
Okay, I’m going to stop you there. That’s all there is too it. We’ve discussed this ad nauseum.
If you are going to allow her to terminate the pregnancy, that’s all there is to it. You don’t need to interject bizarre little quibbles. The pro-life community loves to try and add little extra conditions, starting with the made up issue of late term elective abortions. Then they want parental consent. Spousal consent. They try to make it so that it’s illegal to drive someone to have an abortion. To transport a minor across state lines for an abortion.
If, as you said, a woman can choose to end her pregnancy, it just might be she realizes she’s pregnant at 7 months. Unless you are willing to require women have semi-annual pregnancy tests, you are going to have to accept that you don’t get control over what they do with their body. It’s just that simple.
I want to cut and paste the OP and forward it to any sexually active woman nervously checking the calender right now. Abortion rights turn from vague debate to real, concrete issue – the most important thing in your entire life, really – for millions of American women every year.
Why not just cut to the chase, here? It’s not solely about the inconvenience of being pregnant - it’s also (and it can be argued primarily) about the burden of having a child, or having another child. If it were solely an issue of pregnancy and foetal development, men would be at worst indifferent when their wives or girlfriends become pregnant, and yet they’re just as capable of viewing the pregnancy as a serious problem and something to be dealt with.
Having a child in indeed a burden, I see little point in arguing it. Many people embrace this burden, bearing it willingly. Others have no interest in taking on this burden or letting it add to existing burdens, or in taking on the burden now, preferring to considering taking it on later. And this is not an attitude of recent liberalized decadence - abortion and abortificants have a history going back thousands of years, as have claims that the practice is immoral.
How important are abortion rights, asks the OP? Well, how important is poverty as an issue to you? The wealthy, faced with unwanted pregnancies, have options. The poor do not. Surely if one wants to extend and maintain poverty, encouraging the poor to have more children, as destined to poverty as themselves, is a viable strategy.
So what is more important? That the numbers of citizens improve, or that their lives do?
How do you kill an egg? If you have eggs for breakfast are you killing them? The reason people like to say pro-life is that they say a human life is lost…well, a sperm contains human life…so there are many human lives lost in every ejaculation,even if one fertilizes an egg!
It is not a biological argument, but a religious one, and there still is freedom of religion ,and one’s religion is not binding for those who have a different way of looking at things. It still is the woman’s choice what she does with her body!
