Fetal Rights & Forced Medical Treatment: Your Opinion?

Post Reply New Topic

It also requires an entrustee, which is relevant to the issue of spermatozoa.

Entrusted? by whom or what? Surely not the testicles? the penis? the man? oh you mean The MAN

Back to the OP, I hope for a world where science is untainted by either superstition or the profit motive. Therefore, the women in question, will receive objective and truthful information on which to make the choice.[i]

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 02 Mar 2010, 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

That is mere fantasy, and you know that! Men have "profit motives" for producing offspring, and they do so on belief ("superstition") about one thing or another in the same way this very thread is driven by "profit motive" (God-bashing) and the "superstition" that either He does not exist or is simply irrelevant or whatever.

Intellectual honesty is the need in *this* little playground!

Perhaps. But some people can be honestly silly.

What the bloody heck are you on about. Firstly, NO I do not think that the creation of a workers state is 'mere fantasy' far from it. My basic point is, I would like women to be able to trust that the advice they are getting is as accurate as scientifically possible, and in the best interests of mother and foetus, being untainted by pharmaceuticals pushing their pills for an increased bottom line, or religious fools pushing their beliefs.



Coming from one such as yourself this is rather funny. Talking of which, you still have not explained by whom or what the foetus is entrusted

leejosepho, I notice a pattern of telling people what they "really" believe in your posts.
Not that I am disagreeing with you, of course. I obviously must "know" that you are correct.

Horse droppings! The fetus is an organic entity that grows in the uterus of a woman. It is a biological entity, not an item of fiduciary trust. Only a religious person of dubious intellect could believe such tripe.

Entrusted! Tell that to a woman that was knocked up by a rapist!

Jeebus Foooking Kryst on a Krutch.

ruveyn

I know that you and I will never agree on the concept of what a fetus is, but there is some middle ground between what you say here and what the further right pro-life forces declare, and that middle ground would be worth giving a little weight to.

The fetus is not "property." It is, at the minimum, alive in its own way and a potential human life. When you speak of it as "property" you negate common sense, and the reality that millions of women understand: that life, the fetus, from day one has a mind of sorts of its own. I can't tell the fetus inside me to grow, not grow, kick, not kick, turn, not turn ... it makes all those choices or steps of destiny without any input at all from me. It is uniquely dependent and yet independent at the same time. If you EVER want to have meaningful conversations on this issue, you HAVE to show SOME respect for that fact. Doing so doesn't harm the concept of women's rights, because it is a separate question from the fact that this life can create real burdens for the woman that no one can or should ask that woman to bear. As the carrier, and the one affected most by this separate life, she can and should have the right to make the choices for it. Nothing she does for the fetus is separate from her own destiny; it is all tied together, so of course the right should be hers. But to say the fetus is property? That is just wrong and devisive, and actually destructive to the goals of the pro-choice movement, because it flies too far from the paths of reason as understood by most adults.

Our world recognizes today that your cat is not "property." Can't you give at least the same level to the fetus that you would give to an animal? It really boggles my mind that you would not.

I've heard effective arguments that the fetus in certain stages is no more than tissue. I have heard effective arguments that it isn't a human life because it may never take on that form, dying in the womb (hence my use of the term "potential human life" and choice to say "life" in a more abstract way). I have heard effective arguments on the morals and ethics involved in hundreds of different and unique scenarios, and agreed that even when the resolution of that dilemna is one I would not have chosen, it was at least carefully thought out. For all those reasons, I do not want the law choosing for the woman. But to call the fetus property ... it's cold. I can't even respect your right to think that way.

To the OP's question: I would say no. The mother's life and that of the potential child are too tied together to force decisions upon her. Help her make informed and carefully thought out choices, definitely. Give her the resources to insure she HAS choices, and doesn't feel locked into a path she would not have picked if "things had been different." But that is as far as an outsider should go.

No middle ground between truth/fact on the one hand and nonsense on the other. I stand with truth and fact. No compromise is possible.

ruveyn

Exactly what did I say that you feel is nonsense? I don't feel I sit at either extreme.

Truth and fact does not make the fetus "property." That is OPINION. So I'm not sure where your truth and fact line is, as you are just as bound by opinion here as the flip side, from where I sit. But I'd be interested in understanding.

I think the OP has raised an interesting question. Considering that above 32 weeks a baby can generally survive outside of the womb with little or no adverse affects should an in-situ foetus of the same age be afforded the right to independent medical care. Just suppose it was more beneficial to correct an abnormality before full development had occurred, does the mother at this point, have a right to prevent this?

First, I have just for the first time heard the question of this thread:



I cannot imagine any civil human being disagreeing with that, but that is not the question here ... and if I am understanding correctly, the question here is about whether a pregnant woman has any obligation or responsibility beyond her personal will.

No, she does not. But for just as long as the rest of humanity exists, expectations will nevertheless be placed upon her.

Not by me.

What a cheeky presumptuous statement. Do you speak for all Mankind now? Perhaps I missed the e-mail notice of the meeting where you were appointed spokesman for all of us.

A women owns the contents of her body. Period.

As long as she does not void it in the middle of the street she can dispose of it as she sees fit.

ruveyn

I read the statement as indicating that someone will place expectations on the mother, not that "all mankind" will. And, in that, he is right - a woman is always going to be under pressure from someone to make certain choices. Once a woman is visibly pregnant, a nice chunk of the world acts as if she is public property - a fact you discover really fast when you become visibly pregnant.

As for your statement that "a woman owns the contents of her body, period," I would say this is your opinion. I am not aware of any law or court case that states this. In fact, the law in many countries strongly takes the near opposite view.

Says who?

But either way, expectations are still placed upon her.



Surely you do not believe that! Even suicide is against the law, and women get in trouble for leaving babies in dumpsters.

Oops! Please excuse me, DW. I posted from the previous page without knowing you had already said that!