My decision to call a developed fetus a person is not arbitrary. I am not a native speaker of your language, so in order to not make a mistake I have looked up the word “arbitrary”. Here is what I found:
You may not agree with my assignment of that term or you may say that I misinterpret the evidence. I am willing to debate you over it. But since I have stated my reasons I do not see why you call it arbitrary. Disagreeing with my reasons is not the same as saying that there aren’t any. And I hope that you are not suggesting that I have no “concern for what is fair or right”.
The situation where one person resides in the body of another only occurs in pregnancy. So in order to decide what to do with it, we cannot draw on a comparable example.
If as you say above we assume that a fetus is legally a person from the moment of conception, you could call that an unwelcome invasion. In an unwanted pregnancy the fertilized egg is placed in the mother’s body without her consent. She should be allowed to have it removed. In this case, I would concur with your stance that the mother’s rights to self-determination has priority.
The situation changes, when the mother gives informed consent. By doing so she exercises her right to self-determination. The details of how to provide the mother with sufficient opportunity to give informed consent can be tricky in some instances as **Dangerosa **has pointed out. I do not deny that. What I deny is that in a decision on the matter the rights of the mother are the only ones that warrant consideration.
No, you are making a case for limiting the time. I don’t think there should be a time limit because I think the edge case of deciding at 23 weeks “oh, shit, I don’t want this” is so uncommon as to not be worth legislating. But I’m not for legislating any time limit at all, because there are hundreds of variables that go into each individuals decision - enough combinations that each decision deserves to be treated like a unique decision for a unique woman in unique circumstances - one that she, as the owner of the body involved and the person responsible for the fetus in question, is most qualified to make.
In fact, it is common in the case of conjoined twins, to sacrifice the life of one during separation. We’ve established that even when born, you don’t have the right to live off someone else’s body.
Of the three definitions offered, I think the middle one best applies.
Then I see no reason to assume the fetus has to be protected, or indeed make ANY assumptions. You want to argue for the protection of later-term fetuses? Do it without making any references to personhood, since that’s being assumed for the sake of argument.
I was prepared to fall back on the now-tired example of whether or not your child had a right to your blood or your kidney, but this is better.
Right–but until someone else is able to take care of the kiddo, you’re required to do so. In rare circumstances under which the transfer can’t happen quickly–say, a blizzard, or a ship at sea, or a natural disaster that has knocked out infrastructure–the requirement to keep your kid alive can be extended indefinitely. There’s no time period after which the judicial system would say, “Sure, you dumped your toddler out in the snow, where she froze, but no worries, you contacted authorities and nobody came, so you’re in the clear.”
I continue to find the analogy to a person in your house ineffective at supporting pro-life positions ONLY because the fetus isn’t analogous to a person in your house.
I was under the impression that such operations are only attempted when the presence of the weaker twin poses a serious health risk for the stronger. If that is true, the analogy would be the medical necessity exception for abortion, which as it seems we all support.
But let’s say it was not so. Let’s say Jack and Jill are conjoined twins, who despite the odds are physically and mentally healthy even though Jill depends on Jack’s organs for survival. As adulthood approaches, Jack begins to entertain the idea of marriage and a family and realizes that Jill’s presence will make it significantly harder for him to get either. So he decides he wants a separation, even though it is clear that she will not survive that. Her opinion on the matter is not asked. What you are trying to tell me, is that Jack is morally and legally in the clear here?
You cannot “not legislate” the matter. Under the rule of law you need to uphold the principle of legal certainty. That means, a doctor, who is asked to perform an abortion on a 23 week fetus needs to be able to know whether what is being asked of him is illegal or not. It entirely does not matter how common something is. As long as it can happen, the law needs to provide for it. Countries like Canada that have no specific abortion law still have legislation. The matter is simply covered by other laws, and as I understand Bryan Ekers the result is that abortion is allowed.
No, that isn’t the case. For one thing, Jack and Jill can’t be conjoined ;). But now it is fairly normal to separate the twins, even when one will die, so the other has the best chance at a normal life. Its a quality of life issue for the surviving twin. So far, it hasn’t come up with adults (I don’t think adults could survive the operation) but it has with young children - one child is sacrificed for the quality of life of the other child. And its a parental decision, like abortion is.
You are making it too easy for yourself here.
What if a hardcore pro-life fundamentalist takes the same stance and tells you that your claim that a woman has a right to decide over her body is nothing but an assumption of yours and that you are making that assumption only for the sake of argument. Since your argument depends of that assumption it is obviously invalid.
Why should I simply accept that your assumption is better than my assumption?
I disagree with your premise. It being my body, the decision should be made by me. My medical provider doesn’t need to know if it isn’t legal because abortion should always be legal.
I am not familiar with the legislation regarding the separation of conjoined twins. Any cite you can provide would be much appreciated.
Regardless, I maintain that in a situation where the continuation of a pregnancy would put the mother at risk of suffering a health impairment that is comparable to the situation of a conjoined twin, the medical necessity clauses of most countries would allow an abortion.
Should your medical provider not know whether it is legal or should they know that it is legal? I am pretty sure they need to know, because in the former case they would refuse the procedure. They need to know that if some Christian fundamentalist takes them to court over the abortion, they are safe. That is what legal certainty is for.
Yes, but it won’t matter - the reasons you are giving for your position do not strike me as rational or well-supported. We can only agree to disagree on this point.
You don’t have to. The hardcore fundamentalist doesn’t have to. If I’m called on to give my reasons why a woman should have that right, I can. If I’m asked what is the downside of giving women that right, I’ll say the example of Canada suggests there isn’t one.
I disagree that the fetus has the same rights as a real person. That would lead to all kinds of absurdities. If grandpaw Owen dies, leaving his estate to his first grandchild…does a fourth-month fetus count? I’ve mentioned the census. A fetus can’t own property. We don’t count your age as being nine months greater than the time since your birth.
You’re marking up a big absurdity and demanding we bow to it. Well…nuts. We won’t. It’s a dumb idea.
(I don’t object too much to “fetal death” laws, punishing someone for illicitly killing someone else’s fetus. That certainly should be illegal. But it’s evil for people to try to use that leverage to say that the fetus has rights. Instead, in that situation, it is the woman carrying the fetus whose rights have been infringed. “Fetal personhood” laws are nothing but trojan horse assaults on abortion rights.)
There isn’t legislation (not in the U.S.) because the situation is between the parents, the patients (who are too young to have opinions) and the doctors. Which is how medical decisions SHOULD be made.
The government has a responsibility to regulate - not legislate - to make sure drugs and medical procedures aren’t risky beyond their reasonable reward (some procedures are inherently risky, but the downside of not doing it are bigger). Not to tell us what we can and can’t do with our lives and bodies.
Question: Why are you in this thread? Apparently everyone either agrees with you or is harboring “dumb ideas”.
I would consider being here a waste of my time, if I did not assume that people on the opposite side if the debate are intelligent and capable of presenting rational arguments.
I was musing on inheritance issues earlier today. Surely there’s precedent on this issue. I can picture case where:
-A wealthy man dies while his second wife is pregnant.
-The man’s will says his estate is to be divided up “among my children.”
-The man’s adult children from his first marriage don’t want to give a share to their not-yet-born half-sibling, argue that since the fetus is not a legal person, it has no standing to be considered as an heir.
There have to be lots of cases like this, where enough money was involved that it went to the country’s Supreme Court. Frankly, I’d be quite surprised if a fetus would not get a share to be held in trust, the funds returned to the estate if the fetus is stillborn, but otherwise receiving the money 18 or 21 years (or whatever) after birth. Trouble is, when I google “fetal inheritance”, almost all the websites are about inheriting genetic defects rather than wealth.
I see wiki has a page called “Posthumous birth”, which seems on point. I’ll give it a look-see.