Absolutely not – where did you get this from my post? The “sound mind” part is meant to allow for the state to take measures to protect mentally ill people from harming themselves. It wouldn’t include the state being allowed to force abortions on anyone at all.
But in this thread alone, 24 out of 27 pro-choicers have voted to keep abortion legal even if a fetus is a person. IOW, I don’t think that “if there was a general consensus that a fetus was a human being then abortions would be as illegal as murder.”
Sorry, I totally mis-read things, my apologies.
But if a mentally handicapped or mentally ill pregnant woman wants an abortion, does she get one?
Little Nemo:
Wow. An analysis of the abortion debate which actually considers that the stated beliefs on the anti-abortion side are sincere rather than a cover for misogyny. Will wonders never cease?
I think she should, unless her doctors and caretakers can come up with a compelling reason as to why this decision would harm her more than completing the pregnancy would.
It’s not about the baby, it’s about the pregnancy. Do you feel like parents should be legally compelled to donate organs/bone marrow/blood when it has a chance of saving the life of their kid? If my son needs my kidney, should they strap me to a table and cut out my kidney over my objections?
And if the fetus is a person, how would you punish miscarriages? Every single one would have to be investigated as a murder. Maybe the woman drank wine, took aspirin or “thought bad thoughts” about the fetus.
But abortion isn’t legal up to birth. It differs between states and in most cases is illegal after 24 to 26 weeks from conception. That’s primarily when a fetus is considered to be viable outside of the womb. When in all practicality, without care and nurture from another living being no baby is viable on its own even when carried to full term. They will starve to death or die from exposure.
So under the premise of the OP if a fetus was determined to be a “human being” at conception, subject to protections that other human beings are afforded, then yes from a legal sense abortion should be illegal before 24 weeks.
If a mother abandons their child after birth they can be prosecuted. If a person shoots a pregnant mother with a full term baby and it’s killed they can be charged with murder.
No, but if you refuse to take your kid to the doctor or withhold lifesaving medical care from them, you can be charged with neglect and possibly have your parental rights taken away.
Pretty much yeah, whether a fetus is a human being or not has no bearing on the question. It still has no rights to that female’s body any more than any other random human being would.
This makes me wonder:
In this thread, the vast majority (74%) of people have voted to keep abortion legal even if a fetus is a person.
So why, in real life, isn’t there a strong effort to overturn laws banning 3rd-trimester “viable” abortions? Isn’t the situation similar?
This doesn’t happen under current law with late-term miscarriages, even when abortion is illegal and some degree of fetal personhood is recognized.
I’ve said elsewhere that the key question to the entire debate is whether the fetus is human enough for rights. Mostly, I think that is true of other people. Personally, I also have another factor I take into account, and that is of self-preservation.
The reason why murder, assault, rape, discrimination, etc. is illegal is partly because we want to protect ourselves from that in case the political winds ever change to make us vulnerable. Well, none of us, ever, in the past, present, or future, will be capable of crawling back inside our mothers to be reborn. That won’t happen. So if we abort fetuses, its not like it’ll ever happen to us, and it’ll never get to the point where a fetus survives, remembers, and takes revenge on the rest of humanity, so there’s literally no point in protecting it. Its meaningless.
Another factor I won’t go into is that I don’t think a fetus suffers, or it does so so briefly that its irrelevant. I’m completely unmoved by pictures of disgusting fetal parts. That’s designed to provoke an emotional reaction, I don’t think the fetus’s brain or nerves are developed enough to feel anything, so killing them is fine
Interesting article, but I don’t think it quite makes its case so much as present suggestions for future legal problems.
The article provides the following examples:
-
An adult pregnant woman who refused a caesarean section even though the child risked damage. The refusal was upheld.
-
A case of two adult cousins where one refused a necessary donation. The refusal was upheld.
-
Two siblings where the donor was a mentally impaired individual who, as best as could be determined, wanted to donate to his older brother. The donation was permitted.
-
Two twins, age 7, where one twin wanted to donate a kidney for the other. The donation was permitted.
-
A man who wanted to test his 3 year old twins for donor compatibility to their 12 year old half-brother, who they didn’t really know. The twins’ mother, who was their legal gaurdian, refused. The refusal was upheld.
-
A family who had a child and saved his cord blood to be used for an older child with birth defects. The child’s embryo was subject to embryonic testing to determine that the embryo did not have the birth defect present in the living child. No actual donation other than cord blood was taken from the resulting child.
In summation, donations were allowed when the minor donor wanted to proceed, or when the donation was non-invasive, such as cord blood from the pregnancy. Donations were refused when the donor did not want to proceed, or when the parents disagreed on the procedure. I don’t think this article makes the case that parents, through the courts, can force a child to donate against the wishes of the child or the child’s guardian. It’s obvious that parents can bring extra-legal pressure on their minor children, but that’s a different problem.
There’s the famous case of Davis v. Davis where a woman wanted to carry her frozen embryos to term, but her ex-husband didn’t want her or any other woman to carry them because he no longer wanted to have children with her.
In the end, the embryos were destroyed.
I have always felt that “personhood”/viability/whatever has always been a red herring in this discussion.
There’s a moral/cultural benefit to allowing abortions to be performed in a safe and legal way. Whether someone somewhere has decided to define those aborted fetuses as persons or not, or whether they have a degree of consciousness is irrelevant.
Because of compromise. The entire discussion about identifying an arbitrary time during gestation before which abortions are ok and after which they are a no-no is a product of trying to find common ground between those who think that abortions are fine and those who think that they are murder.
I always try to understand what somebody’s point of view is even if I don’t agree with them.
And I’ve observed many people reject this idea. They apparently see understanding the opposing side as akin to surrendering ground to them.
Right. But that’s not my body. It’s not analogous.
Yes, you play a role in getting pregnant. But unalienable rights are unalienable–you can’t give them away or sell them. I never stop having control over my body. I can’t sell myself into slavery. I can’t write a contract giving up my right to consent to sex with my husband–I can’t stop having the right to say no. I have an unalienable right to my body and no one else, even an innocent child, can trump that.
Now, would I give my son my kidney? I’d give him both, without hesitation. I’d cheerfully throw myself between him and anything. But the law telling me I have to, because I got pregnant?
You can’t compel a person to get a blood test to see if they are a match for bone marrow. That’s too invasive to subject a person to without their consent. But I can be forced to stay pregnant? To have a c-section? How is that not out of whack?
Unless she was raped she was not physicaly forced to do any of these things. Sex is actaully a form of breeding with its primary purpose to make babies.
You assume the sdmb posters are a reflection of the majority of people. It is not.