After reading through the numerous pro-life positions, I had a strange thought: What would change in our society if we decided that a fetus is a baby?
I guess suddenly we’d all be 9 months older. All our documentation would involve our conception date rather than birth date. But those are very superficial, what would change on a larger scale? What sort of laws/services are in place for a 1 month old that are not in place for a –1 month old?
-taxes
-health care
-education
-welfare/social assistance
Would any of these be affected? Would all our ‘age based laws’ have to be adjusted (drinking, driving, voting, etc)?
I thought I heard somewhere that some societies do celebrate their conception date as we celebrate our birthday. Wish I could remember which one(s) (if any).
It would mean that life expectancy would take a serious hit. Approxiamtely 1 in 3 conceptions end in a miscarriage. What would it do to life expectancy stats if one third of all humans died before their birth date?
Well, the obvious change would be that abortion would be illegal.
Beyond that, I would assume that would mean that parents would have to name their children in utero, as well, thus, for many, finding out the sex of the child will be important.
I suppose that mothers who do drink/smoke/use illegal drugs could be charged with endangerment and/or some degree of homicide if a miscarriage results.
Proving an exact conception date may be difficult (it’s not always 9 months before birth you know…)
Child support would have to paid by non-custodial parents even before birth. (Don’t even ask about visitation rights… )
Due to the (slight) risk to the fetus, we probably wouldn’t see too many amniocenteses done, so determining the sex ahead of time, although much more important, would be much more difficult.
That’s only if pro-choicers decided that unborn babies should have all the government protection of born babies. Is that part of your hypothetical emacknight?
Yes actually, that was the point of this thread. What if a fetus had all the government protection that we all get? What would change (other than abortion)?
I like trying to think using analogies, so I’ll see if I can make one.
Does the government require that you allow yourself to be held hostage on behalf of someone else? Does the government require that you allow yourself to be tortured on behalf of someone else? Does the government require that a person who has committed no crime be imprisoned on behalf of someone else?
I think arguments can be made that requiring the completion of a pregnancy is akin to one (or more) of the above hypotheticals. My rights as a human being do not grant me the right to hold you hostage, or torture you, or imprison you, or harm you.
No, Julie, if a fetus were accorded the full status of a human being, then the situation might be akin to that of cojoined twins. Just as one twin cannot kill the other one to “free” herself of her sibling, so to a woman would not be allowed to “murder” the fetus to free herself of it (especially when you consider the fact that she’d be free of it within a year anyway…)
All your arguments (i.e. being held hostage, etc.) fail when it comes to cojoined twins.
But a baby can be handed over to social security if the Mother cannot cope with looking after it. Can a Mother hand over a -9 months old baby to Social security to look after? Would the fact that Social security could not keep the child alive mean that the Mother is to blame for the death of the child. A child that she accepts she cannot look after, and so gives to social security (or whatever the relivent body for looking after unwanted children is)
But the difference with a pregnant woman is, the woman was there first. It was the fetus that (so to speak) crawled inside of her and made a home for itself.
Conjoined twins? They’ve been around for exactly the same amount of time. No twin “hijacked” the other’s body.
All your arguments (i.e. being held hostage, etc.) fail when it comes to cojoined twins.
That may be Blalron, but once they are attached, one does not have the right to kill the other at will. Who was there first is really irrelevant. After all, why is age a determining factor in whether one person has the right to kill another?
The government is the champion of the oppressed and protector of the innocent and of those who cannot protect themselves. There will be sever changes in attiture towards pregnancy.
*Womens rights will take a giant step backwards. Pregnancy will be considered a full time task and any harm that is done to the “child” while in utero can be investigated for possible neglect or endangerment. Employwers will shy away from hiring any potential mothers for fear of reprisals, lawsuits or huge insurance risks.
*Women will be held hostage by their fetus. Obviously, the fetus cant take care of itself, then as the sole caretaker (mother) she is fully responsible and obligated to take full care of the fetus’ health. Any miscarriage can be investigated as a possible homocide.
*Since ignorance of the law is no excuse, neither is ignorance of the fact that the person you are messing with is pregnant. A mother 4 months pregnant does not show signs of her condition, any drug dealer, playboy, assaulter, or even accidental perpetrator will be liable for 2 victims not just one. The law would look dimly if she peed on a stick and tested positive one day and you knocked her over sideways and she tested negative afterwards. Civil lawsuits all around.
*OB/GYN will face even stiffer malpractice insurance costs. People will sue these doctors for any discoloration of the pregnancy test but they will now face criminal charges as well.
*Prisons will find midwives who performed illegal abortions on teenagers getting the same sentences as a failed suicide bombers or serial killers.
I dunno, Blalron, it’s hard to suggest that the pregnancy is the fetuses fault instead of the mother/father’s. I mean, it was the action of the mother (99+% of the time) that resulted in the existance of the fetus in the first place, so it’s certainly as much her fault as anyone’s.
)