Fetal Rights & Forced Medical Treatment: Your Opinion?

Post Reply New Topic

As it happens I was, my mother was well into her thirties, and had her kids, mum and dad had been on the ropes and reconciled and done some horizontal folk dancing to celebrate, and her pregnancy with me was the result. Had the foetus that became me been aborted I would have had absolutely no idea about it and therefore would not have cared. The fact that I am alive today and able to write this makes no difference, for me to think "phew, that was a close shave" would be plain stupid.

No, it's the one where the main character joined the Marines to rescue his girlfriend from angry genocidal aliens.

I certainly knew some folks would say that, but that was not the point of my comment. I once heard the story of someone who had actually survived an abortion, and her feelings were much different.

The point here is simply that we human beings actually *do* decide the fate of real people, however undeveloped they might presently be, every time we decide either way concerning abortion.

And we make that decision every time we decide whether or not to wear a condom or whether or not to invite a girl for a drink or whether or not we take a job that does or does not pay enough to support a family.

Your right about that. If your life is at risk but your off your rocker you doctors will sometimes have to do treatment without your consent. In particular a emergency or live-or-death situation. However I do not know if its not a life-or-death ordeal..

It could also be the same case if someone is Mentally Challenged and still as the mentality of a child.

So in reality, no one has any rights. This is why I have been complaining about my lack of rights, and everyone just ignores me. Everyone just ignores me. This is why I plan to get a gun license. (Just Kidding.)

Somewhat OT, but worth exploring given that the overarching topic is forced medical care. It's not just a shrink that can declare someone incompetent to make their own medical decisions, and there is no hearing and no appeal. An ER physician can decide, as can a police officer. In addition, someone who is unconscious and in danger is covered by 'implied consent,' where they are assumed to consent to care that would save their life, unless they have clear written instructions not to treat them on file (and even then sometimes the hospital gets embroiled in a law suit with relatives who didn't want treatment stopped. The relatives generally lose in those cases, but it doesn't stop them from trying).

Police officers can also order the collection of evidence from a person's body without their consent. For example, they can require blood to be drawn from someone suspected of a DUI even if that person declines.

So the idea of forced treatment is not beyond the pale. The question is whether or not pregnant women should be included in the same category as the mentally insane, the mentally incompetent, and suspected criminals who are under arrest - just because they happen to be pregnant? In cases like the one I posted earlier, should the state have the right to place the life of a woman's z/e/f over the health and security of her already born children and her own bodily autonomy? Personally, I don't think that a woman should cease to have the rights of a mentally normal, law-abiding U.S. citizen just because she's pregnant.

It might not be your intent to merely spin a bunch of hyped rhetoric here, but some sorting must be done if we are ever going to look at any of this clearly:

A woman does *not* cease to have any previously-held right simply because she is pregnant. So, that is not the question here.

The question here is whether or not a woman either already has, or whether or not a woman at least *should* have (or even actually gain) a right to simply do as only *she* pleases in relation to a gestating fetus inside her. For example, and to get away from all the foolish arguing about abortion:

Should a pregnant woman have a right to fly at any time of her own choosing even though doing so could cause harm to her and/or to her fetus as well as causing trauma for other passengers on the plane when she becomes a medical emergency simply because she insisted on flying even though her baby is/was due at any time?

See, if we are going to say a woman has a right to do as she pleases while pregnant, then let us do so without getting into all the rucus about whether or not that includes a right to have the child pulled from her womb just far enough to have its brains sucked out in order to assure it is still-born.

If we are going to talk about a right to kill and/or to murder, then let us do so without distractingly dragging pregnant women into the mix.

I cannot speak authoritatively on the state of the law in your jurisdiction, but I can state categorically that this is not the case in Canada. This would be held to be a most egregious transgression of the subject's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. I would be astonished if it were not found to be so in all jurisdictions in the United States, as well.

If a suspect refuses consent to the taking of a blood sample in Canada, police apply to a provincial court judge for a telewarrent. They are required to present their reasonable grounds for belief to a judge, and satisfy the judge as to the propriety of a warrant.

Once there is a requirement of an application to a higher authority (even on an ex parte basis) this is no longer a matter within the discretion of the police officer.

Firstly EVIDENCE PLEASE, if you are talking about Gianna Jessen, I hardly think 31 weeks equates to attempted abortion, more like attempted murder. And I take offence at your dismissive attitude toward my post. No I did not survive an attempted abortion, but I certainly have discussed the fact openly with my parents that I was nearly aborted, and yet you choose to give very little credence to my views on the matter, but then what should I expect from someone who by their own admission " once forced (insisted upon) an abortion a woman did not want to have"

Hey, this is actually a pretty lucid post. Awesome.

Not particularly awesome. It demands that a pregnant woman be put under state supervision immediately after it is confirmed she is impregnated to make sure she does not do anything in any way that might be deleterious to the fetus. That type of subjugation is typical of imprisonment and sounds idiotic. And, of course, restricts totally any early abortion or perhaps even some birth control.

So here is the original question:

Or, should any of us ever be required or expected or even simply asked to do anything for the sake of anyone?

Or, should we each and all simply be allowed to dispense with anyone we might find a bit too demanding or needy?

The question is not about whether a fetus can fend for itself, the question is whether any of us have any obligation toward it.

Nobody here has suggested any such thing!

Only if obliged under a genuine contact. And puhleeeeze, no Social Contract nonsense. Thank you.

In the absence of a contract there are no positive duties, with the possible exception of caring and protecting one's offspring which one has brought into the world.

ruveyn

You are suggesting that a pregnant woman has an obligation to participate in behavior that will not endanger a fetus in any manner whatsoever and that cannot be guaranteed without very strict supervision.