Is The Concept Of Fetal Rights Too Broad?

Post Reply New Topic

The concept of fetal rights goes much farther than abortion, it extends to the point where the government can dictate everything that happens to a woman's body simply because she is pregnant. There have been cases of forced C-sections, court-ordered blood transfusions, even compulsory bed rest. And, eventually, it becomes a question not of the rights of the fetus, but one of the rights of the Mother-to-be. So, is the concept of fetal rights too broad? For more information on this subject go to this link: http://www.alternet.org/story/18493/

human rights should always go first imo. since it's impossible to prove that a foetus is a human being (and it's not really a scientific argument so it will never be 100% certain, will always be dependent on the point of view) its rights shouldn't be above an actual living breathing human being.

This reminds me of the horrible ending to 'Noughts And Crosses'.

Fetuses do not have rights. People have rights. Fetuses are not people.

ruveyn

That's both scary & disgusting. No one else should have the right to control another adult's body. Forced c-sections? *shiver*

It is not because the woman is pregnant, but simply because the woman is a subject of the "king" (government). As crazy as this might sound, the woman has (most likely unwittingly) entered into a contract with the state, and the state has the upper hand and ultimate authority. That "contract" can come about in any of a variety of ways, but it all comes down to the abandonment of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (including ownership of property and control of one's own children)" for the sake of alleged security.

The article only states a few articles where the doctors were wrong about the reason for the court order. The article does not attempt to offer any statistics about how many times doctors have been right when they got a court order and I doubt such statistics exist, so there is no way to come up with an unbiased opinion of the article. Doctors jobs are to save lives and part of their oath is to do no harm. When a woman denies a c-section, the doctors have to choose whether they are going to save the baby's life at the expense of the woman having to recover from surgery or to look after the mother's rights alone. Considering that both the mother and baby most likely live if the c-section is done, then that, to a lot of people, would appear to be the lesser of two evils.

On this issue, there's obviously a mean between the extremes. I cannot say I have any familiarity with the examples the AlterNet article cites, but as written, they do sound horrible. Still, I wouldn't consider a late-term fetus that could be viable outside the womb a mere extension of the mother's body; by the same token, a blastocyst doesn't resemble a human much. I think some balance must be struck between expert medical opinion and the mother's wishes. If an operation would risk the mother's life to save the fetus's, the mother's rights should trump. If the fetus could be born within hours or days and an operation could save the fetus without increasing risk for the mother, medical opinion should trump.

I sympathize with the plight of a young mother who has discovered she has an unwanted pregnancy early on, and I sympathize with mothers whose lives may be at risk, but I also have trouble seeing a fetus that is about as developed as a baby just born as just some extraneous bit of flesh on the mother.

Agreed. Also, unlike a man, a woman becomes a mother before the actual birth takes place. There's all sorts of prenatal care and sacrifices on the mother's part to ensure the healthy development of her baby. A woman literally feels much of the development from morning sickness to hiccups to rib kicks. Part of becoming a mother is the realization that another life is depending on her. Selfishness goes out the window along with a good night's sleep and perky boobs. Most mothers realize this well before getting pregnant, or at least during the pregnancy. If a woman is unable to make the safest choices for her baby during delivery due to selfish desires, or perhaps even clouded judgement (it is very easy to become an emotional wreck during pregnancy and especially during delivery), then I have no problem with the doctors having final say assuming he/she has the best interests of both mother and baby in mind. Thankfully, I believe these cases are extremely rare. I have yet to meet a woman who did not insist on their baby's health being their #1 priority.

As scary as this may sound, I read about a case where a pregnant woman was jailed because she was HIV-positive and pregnant.

Last edited by LiberalJustice on 13 Nov 2009, 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A human fetus is one hundred percent human. Just check its genome out. However it can be argued whether a human fetus is a human person.

ruveyn

I just wanted to point out that the article you're using as the basis for this topic is over 5 years old.

semantics

I think this is more a philosophical question than a moral or legal one. And since we all have our own philosophies, we all have our own opinions. Usually such questions would be settled according to the prevailing opinion at the time. Right now there isn't one; half of us believe passionately one way, half equally as passionately the other. But at least it gets at the crux of the whole debate: at what point does a fertilized egg become a person.

Being a Libertarian when it comes to Government control over us, I don't think they have any right to tell you what you can do with your own body. I feel that is the ultimate form of Government intrusion. Until it is born, I feel a baby is part of her mother's body, and not subject to Government control.

The rights of the mother are paramount, screw the foetus.

While I must agree, I also know that there are some who believe that the fetus' rights should be placed above the mother's.