|
|
Women are capable of not informing anyone she is pregnant, and even if people start noticing it is not as if they’d inform the proper doctors immediately asking if she already is seeing someone. It’s quite possible for a mother to take dangerous stuff while having a fetus without a doctor noticing it (or even friends/family), so when the baby gets born and it is deformed or harmed in one way or another with the mother being the cause, it is too late to prevent the damage. One can still set the mother straight, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:
Not certain to exist? Is it even a relevant requirement, though?
For the judging of the rights of an existing Person against a Person that may never exist. Yeah i find that pretty relevant.
The issue is whether or not the mother is doing it on purpose and/or knows that taking that action will damage the fetus. Ignoring person requirements for now, this would be the equivalent of saying it’s fine to punch an old man in the stomach who’s about to have a critical operation with a low success rate because it’s not certain he’ll be alive in the future (for the record, the fetus is alive, and does exist, it just isn’t a person, like animals).
No its like punching yourself in the Uterus. The fetus while inside and connected to the mother is alive and exists sure. But only as a body-part of the Mother, very different from most animals that that are given rights.
And I’m beginning to feel you’re just attacking detailed exceptions and loopholes. If you find one, fine, I’ll adjust my opinion to reflect it in, but I don’t really think it’s going to make a major change in my argument.
Not my intention. Though i must admit that i am not at by intellectually best at the moment. Currently studying for my Master Degree next to work.
Which loopholes?
That if you want to justify taking the rights away from a Mother you have to justify it in general by taking away the comparable rights of everyone else that harms themselves and/or would harm a (equally) potential future person?
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it so important for a woman to have the ability to harm or eliminate a life she is carrying? I tire of hearing people give so little value to the life of the fetus. Let’s be brutally honest here. Self absorption by the youth of today is appalling. This is why our civilization is in so much trouble today. What gives one human being the right to kill another. As far as I know, it is not a right, but a privilege given by a court of men. If we accept the privilege granted to kill the unborn, how long before we are granted the privilege to kill our fellow human beings?
If a woman is so naive she can’t understand taking a substance harmful to the fetus, she needs to be made sterile. She doesn’t have enough mental capacity to become a mother. Causing harm to the fetus in this manner demands punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it so important for a woman to have the ability to harm or eliminate a life she is carrying?
Because it’s warranted in some situations?
I tire of hearing people give so little value to the life of the fetus.
I tire of hearing people giving so little regard for the mother.
Self absorption by the youth of today is appalling. This is why our civilization is in so much trouble today.
Citation needed.
If a woman is so naive she can’t understand taking a substance harmful to the fetus, she needs to be made sterile.
I vote for that people who think other people should be made sterile should be made sterile, if they don’t have a really good argument and supporting evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:I tire of hearing people give so little value to the life of the fetus.
I have never, not once, heard anyone argue that a mother’s decisions are not important, or that she is not important. I have heard, countless times, people argue that the fetus inside the mother is not important, or is not alive, or is not human. People, generally, do NOT argue against the mother. People, generally, DO argue against the fetus. This makes your point not only a straw man, but a hypocritical one.
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by MyTie:
I have never, not once, heard anyone argue that a mother’s decisions are not important, or that she is not important.
Good thing he didn’t say that’s what he said he hears.
And,of course, you =/= him.
|
|
|
|
|
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:I tire of hearing people give so little value to the life of the fetus.
I have never, not once, heard anyone argue that a mother’s decisions are not important, or that she is not important. I have heard, countless times, people argue that the fetus inside the mother is not important, or is not alive, or is not human. People, generally, do NOT argue against the mother. People, generally, DO argue against the fetus. This makes your point not only a straw man, but a hypocritical one.
Yeah right(/sarcasm)…
Originally posted by ColtArmy:
Why is it so important for a woman to have the ability to harm or eliminate a life she is carrying?
…
If a woman is so naive she can’t understand taking a substance harmful to the fetus, she needs to be made sterile. She doesn’t have enough mental capacity to become a mother. Causing harm to the fetus in this manner demands punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
For the judging of the rights of an existing Person against a Person that may never exist. Yeah i find that pretty relevant.
But didn’t we post that the fetus should be expected to be carried to term for this to take effect? That doesn’t include accidents, but it does include the mother’s will and the likelihood of miscarriage.
No its like punching yourself in the Uterus. The fetus while inside and connected to the mother is alive and exists sure. But only as a body-part of the Mother, very different from most animals that that are given rights.
I agree there is a difference in rights. It’s more of a suggestion towards what should be rights/obligations. In short, it is suggested there should be an obligation for the mother to keep her fetus healthy if she expects and wishes to carry to term (if she wishes to abort, then there is probably little reason to incur sanctions or the like, and if she is likely to miscarry due to other reasons the same counts as well).
Not my intention. Though i must admit that i am not at by intellectually best at the moment. Currently studying for my Master Degree next to work.
Understandable.
Which loopholes?
You may be attacking possible loopholes which I haven’t accounted for yet.
That if you want to justify taking the rights away from a Mother you have to justify it in general by taking away the comparable rights of everyone else that harms themselves and/or would harm a (equally) potential future person?
Only pregnant women and those in frequent contact with them could be included here. It has nothing to do with harming yourself, but with having a future person with defects that wouldn’t be there if you didn’t harm it. This goes back to knowing it’s not really possible to pinpoint what caused these defects, and I understand all of that. It’s merely about when we do know.
|
|
|
|
|
I would add on to that argument Dark, that if she does miscarry in the end, all charges would be dropped. Even an induced miscarriage is still her right to take after all. It might encourage mothers-to-be facing criminal charges, to do just that, of course, but arguably better than the alternative.
I should note that legislation of this kind, increases the chance that when artificial wombs do come of age, it will be legally advisable to use one rather than your own equipment to carry to term. Insurance premiums will begin to bias that way, and the risk of prosecution for imbibing a substance you did not realise you imbibed, only strengthens the case.
|
|
|
|
|
I would add on to that argument Dark, that if she does miscarry in the end, all charges would be dropped.
I guess I agree. After all, there is no future person any more.
|
