Actually, I think the last time that happened it was the Democratic Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, wasn't it?

Heart and lungs, if memory serves.

People wait months or years on a transplant list ... Gov. Bob somehow ended up with a perfect match donor within a couple weeks ...

Are you saying that an unborn child has no rights? So five minutes before birth a fetus has no rights. Five minutes after, it has all the rights of a US citizen? (Pardon my US centricity to those elsewhere.)

BTW, I think there's a difference between "someone trying to save the life of your unborn child" and "anybody who wants to cut you".

For those of you who think the mother's right to her own body outweighs all other considerations - what do you make of this hypothetical scenario:

A woman suicide bomber has swallowed the bomb. The only way to disarm it is to open her up. Should the woman be allowed to say that she doesn't want surgery in this case?

If you think this is different, please state how.

Chain her to a post and make everybody move 100 yds back ...

No, it only has all the rights of a US citizen at 35 (right to run for presiident).

That's pretty much what I was thinking. On an aside, it would have to be one hell of a small bomb. All it could really do is kill them anyway. Small enough to swallow? Maybe some C4 carefully worked into a long strand or something. But still, I don't think you could get enough down (with appropriate detonators) to actually cause anything more than a big mess.

That's one thing that always cracks me up. Suicide bombers who don't take anyone with them. I mean come on people! If you're going to be stupid enough to be a suicide bomber, make sure you take some one else out too! Run up and give some one a hug or something. Shit. At least get one! Otherwise all your other heroic friends in wherever it is suicide bombers go are all going to laugh at you:

SB1: I got forty five! Ten were children! I love busses!
SB2: I got 11, and maimed 15!
YOU: I got shit. I made a hell of a mess though! That blood stain won't be coming out of that carpet any time soon!
SB1: Pathetic!
SB2: HAHAH No one? You are a disgrace!

Quzah.

I don't know about wisest but I'll do what I can to clarify the argument.

As it stands, the law isn't settled on whether it is a person or not. Conservatives, in general, say that from conception it is a person and should be afforded all consideration that a walking, breathing, voting person should. Liberals, in general, espouse a greater concern for the mother and her personal rights, but havn't been able to get anyone to agree as to when a fetus becomes a person. There are, of course, many shades in that spectrum.

In my opinion, when the fetus goes from being a parasite, in the clinical sense, to being able to survive if it was outside of the womb it should be given the considerations of a person. Before that it should fall under prosecution other than murder. I know that that may seem a bit arbitrary, but until someone actually hands down a solid standard by which to measure and/or prosecute people there are going to be people who escape prosecution who deserve it and people who get the hammer dropped on them when a lesser punishment was deserved.

This one is tough, but I say no. The caveat here is that you can respect a person's physical liberty but still prosecute them for the results of their decision. The problem is, in cases similar to this one, where a mother was doing drugs when she knew she was pregnant. If that child comes out damaged she should be prosecuted for endangerment

No, they can't.

They can take your blood once it's out, but even in the psychiatric facility where I worked patients could refuse blood for bloodwork.

All right. I knew I'd get a bunch of smart ass responses to this. Let me put it in plainer language.

As I see it there are two main questions involved here (along with some ancillary issues) :

1) Do you think a fetus should have rights? If it does, at what point during pregnancy does it begin having rights? If you think a fetus should have no rights, do you think the woman was morally correct in what she did? If not, what do you base that on?

2) If you think a fetus has rights, how do you balance that with the rights of the mother? Do the needs of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother because it's life is at stake?

I'd rather hear whether you think this woman was morally correct. The issue of legality I don't find very interesting.

These are difficult moral questions. If you can't answer these, then admit (at least to yourself) that you're just emoting and not thinking.

1) Do you think a fetus should have rights? If it does, at what point during pregnancy does it begin having rights? If you think a fetus should have no rights, do you think the woman was morally correct in what she did? If not, what do you base that on?

No, I don't think a fetus should have rights. But, I don't think that's what you're really asking here anyway. It seems to me the real question is; do doctors have the right to determin the best interest of someone's fetus or child, and act on it without regard for the parents rights. Again my answer is no.
The woman did a lot of things, which are you referring to? Was it morally correct to refuse surgery... I'd say yes. Was it morally correct to knowingly use drugs that caused harm the the fetus.... I'd say no.

Yes. Certainly that is the ultimate question. However, I think the answer to that question is determined by the answers to my questions.

Your answer to your question was 'no'. Why was it no? How did you come to that conclusion? If not by the questions I posed above, what other criteria did you use?

A fetus is unborn, a "potential" person, not yet an individual.

Turn it around. What if the life of the mother was at stake? Should the fetus have more of a right to live than the mother?

Quzah.

Opening a whole can of worms on my self with this post

I don't think a fetus should have rights.

Do I think this woman was morally correct in what she did?
Hell no, she made a choice that directly resulted in one of her children being born dead. She could have prevented it but she let vanity get in the way. As a parent we make a silent pledge to protect our children at all costs. If you are not willing to protect your child from danger and yes, even death then IMO I don't think you should have had kids to begin with. I know people will disagree with that statement but its how I feel. We are responsible for the life we bring into this world and knowingly putting that life in danger makes that woman lower then scum in my eyes, but given all the articles I have read about her, it looks like she wasn't all together there to begin with.

A fetus has a unique set of genes. No other human being (with the exception of maybe a twin) will ever be the same as that unique fetus. That is very individual to me.

When does a human actualize its potential? When it developes a brain? When it is born? When it can speak? When it graduated from high school, or college? What if it is born retarded and will never get above a three year old's capabilities. Will that child ever stop being just a potential human, or is has it achieved humanity yet? Is it less of a human because of the mental abilities it lacks, and will never achieve?

When we start defining a human being as human material that has achieved certain goals or milestones of physical or mental development, I think we are missing something. Humans are humans because of what they are, not because of what they have done or how far along they have developed. A baby one day before birth is not different from a baby one day after birth. Is one more human than the other? A three day old zygot (or whatever it is called, I can't quite remember) is an individual of unique characteristics, and it is human (not potentially human). We can argue about if is a 'person' whatever that is, but not about if it is human or unique.

The question of abortion is does a mother's choice of what happens to her body have precidence over the right to life of a human being growing inside of her. Take the argument where you will from there.

A baby one day before birth is not different from a baby one day after birth.

I disagree. One day before birth it is a fetus with an obligatory dependant relationship with it's mother. They day after it is a person, a living individual, a men created equal.

In granting the fetus the right to be born surgically, aren't you assuming that the fetus even wants that? Why wouldn't it be assumed that the desires of the fetus are exactly the same as the desires of the mother?

*applauding wildly!!*

What's the goddamned point in having kids if you are going to put them in the line of fire even before they are born??? Hell, I worked with a woman who stayed with her abusive boyfriend, who beat the crap out of her even when she was carrying their child. She told me he threw her down stairs, tossed her against walls, and so forth. But hey...it's HER body and HER decision, right? Such utter and complete bullcrap!

Anyway, this situation in Utah is bringing up some very interesting subject matter, including a woman's decision to not have a C-section:

Charge against W. Jordan mother creates legal challenge

I dont think that the mother should go to prison, let her continence(sp?) be her judge and jury. But I feel that she should not be able to have anymore children though.

...then IMO I don't think you should have had kids to begin with...

What's the goddamned point in having kids if you are going to...


I don't get this point of veiw. Do you think there's a way to apply "You shouldn't have kids if you have unpopular parenting philosophies"? Aborting the fetuses of women who may put them in harms way? Sterilizing women who don't meet 'good mother' criteria? Can you explain this a little further?

It sounded like to me that she understood the consiquences of what could happen, and she chose to worry about her appearence (thats what is sounds like) rather than save the children, at least one of them in this case. Before you ask, I am a father of two wonderful children, and I asked my wife her oppinion before I wrote this, and she agreed that if it would save the children, she would do it, regardless of what the appearence would be.

But that is my opinion

What I mean is that physiologically, the baby is the same, only its location has changed. A nine month old fetus is just as capable of feelings as a one day old baby. It reacts to people's voices, it feels and reacts to pain. I heard of one case (I wish I could confirm but can't) where the womb was not quite full of liquid, and a late term fetus actually was heard crying.

What I am getting at is that legally, you can define anything not yet out of the womb as not possesing rights. But biologically, one is just as fully human as the other.

If you want to argue that the woman's rights over her body superscede those of another human being's rights to live, that is a different argument, and I can see where that is coming from, however what you are saying doesn't connect with me.

Yes, the woman would have had to undergo surgery, but this was a life and death situation for the fully formed human beings inside her. I see this woman as having neglected the responsibilities of a parent to protect her child.


To make up a contrived situation that may or may not be parallel to this mess . A baby swollows a special key that would unlock a vault in which a man is trapped. The man will die by suffocation if the key in not retrieved quickly. Should a surgeon, doing his best to protect the life of the baby, perform surgery and cut the baby to get the key out? Note that in this situation, the baby is incapable of deciding anything. Now what if it is an adult who swollowed the key, and the adult flat out refuses to undergo surgery. If the trapped man dies, is this person responsible in any way for that death?

A thought occured to me.

The government in the past has taken some adults and forced them to go into dangerous life and death situations with the (arguable) purpose of insuring the safety of other people.

It is called the draft.

Yes, I agree. One is a human fetus and the other is a human infant.

Quote:

To make up a contrived situation that may or may not be parallel to this mess . A baby swollows a special key that would unlock a vault in which a man is trapped. The man will die by suffocation if the key in not retrieved quickly. Should a surgeon, doing his best to protect the life of the baby, perform surgery and cut the baby to get the key out? Note that in this situation, the baby is incapable of deciding anything. Now what if it is an adult who swollowed the key, and the adult flat out refuses to undergo surgery. If the trapped man dies, is this person responsible in any way for that death?

I guess that depends on how/why he swallowed it in the first place, if it was intentional and if he knew the consequesnces.

until the umbilical cord is cut, or the placenta delivered, the baby is still part of the mother. A parasite.

Survival of the fittest extends to your parents. If they don;t think enough of you to ensure your survival, then the gene should die with them.


so, are you both pro life AND pro draft?

or are you just playing devils advocate? just because the government does it, doesn;t make it right. The government also [insert latest government committed atrocity here].

so, are you both pro life AND pro draft?

This is called being a "Republican".

It also usually means you have no interest what-so-ever in actually adopting a child that had its life saved by not being aborted.

Or turn it around the other way. The mother follows the doctors advice, say it was just for induction. The baby dies as a direct result of his actions (cytotec or pitocin caused uterine rupture). Rare but it happens. If mom sues she's compared to the hot coffee lady and her lawyer is blamed for the downfall of society.

When a Mexican or Canadian takes one step over the border they have US constitutional rights they didn't have a few seconds before. Location, location, location.;)

Arhhhhhggg, LJ! Can open, worms everywhere. Can the mother who just delivered the baby with still uncut unbilical cord say "I change my mind, abort it now!', or at this point, is it she forced to have the cord cut and let the baby live? Is cutting the cord considered cutting a part of the mother, or is it tissue that is neither baby nor mother? Can she refuse to have the cord cut because it is an invasion of her body's personal space if she is forced to do so?



so, are you both pro life AND pro draft?
or are you just playing devils advocate?


That last post was just me pointing out that the guvment does impose this kind of thing onto its people. I don't consider myself a draft supported, though I think I would back the WWII draft. The Vietnam draft was for really bad reasons, and the elite got to avoid it, which made it even worse.
The draft as a general idea is a bad thing, but I can think of extreme situations where it might be the lesser of evils for a great many people. I'm not very firm on that though.

no, the mother cannot actively decide to kill the baby once it is delivered. nor can she stab it within the womb when it is past the point where it could survive if extracted.

she didnt KILL the baby, she chose not to risk her own life.

If the mother decided not to cut the cord, the placenta comes out, the baby is then autonomous. The mother cannot abandon the baby. if she cannot care for it, she must give it over to the state to care for it. again, this lady did not choose to neglect her fetus, she chose to protect herself.

dont mix up issues. this SOUNDS like pro life/prochoice material, but that's not really what we're discussing. no worms.

So true, so true, and a great parallel to this topic!

Okay, I can see I am wandering around a lot of marginal topics, sorry, I tend to do that.

Let me try to state the key question...

Can the government punish someone for their refusal to accept harm to their body that would result in a saved fetus?

Where this overlaps with the pro life/pro choice I would say is in the question of the rights of a fetus. Where it differs is that a person choosing abortion is actively trying to eliminate the fetus, whereas this woman passively avoided surgery that would have saved the fetus.

I think I got that right, correct me if I am wrong. And I have to go sleep now before I pass out at my keyboard.

No I don't think there is a way to apply my point of view, nor do I think there should be. The only way it could be applied is if every person who wanted to have a child had to apply for a child permit, go through a complete psych. exam, financial evaluation, a general personality evaluation, etc. Who would do that; the government? I don't want anyone to have that much control over someone else. But I do think that some people should put a little more thought into whether they should be getting pregnant. In many states birth control is free, and if its not free, its not that expensive. Just because a person can have a child doesn't always mean they should.

EDIT: Fixed grammar mistake

She put thought into it...

"Ah fuck it. I only wanted one anyway..."

Quzah.

Heart and liver. Gov. Robert P. Casey.

The woman has committed a criminal action and is threatening the public with a lethal weapon.

Now try this one. Instead of cosmetic reasons, the woman is a Christian Scientist morally opposed to C-sections. What now? The court has to tread carefully forcing treatment of children of parents of religious sects against their will.

If I were the woman's lawyer, I would make the following points.

a) The doctors opinions were just that - opinions. Doctors do not always agree and there is never any way to measure the chances in that situation.

b) Health organizations have released warnings about a rise in uncessary C-sections.

c) Doctors routinely recommend C-sections for women who have had them in the past, irregardless of the individual situation. The woman may have had no idea if there was a true emergency or the doctor was practicing 'defensive medicine'.

d) The cosmetic objection the woman is alleged to have made may have been a misunderstanding due to the woman's not being able to articulate her objection. If she had had more than one C-section before, she might simply have developed a phobia towards them. Doctors or nurses may have interpreted her objection as cosmetic when she could not say why she did not want the procedure. "I don't want you to cut into me again" might be interpreted as a cosmetic objection.

e) The equal protection clause gives the woman as much right to refuse an invasive procedure as anyone else, including those making religious objections. If the doctors felt strongly enough, they could have requested a court order as they would in the case of a parent refusing a life-saving operation for a child. The fact that they did not do so indicates that they were unsure of the risks involved.

Article on C-sections

I don't think she has a conscience. She sold it for crack cocaine a couple years ago.

I think you are right,wolf.;)

Arresting people who have not committed a crime is not their job, so they weren't doing their job but were in fact violating the rights of another, which is...you guessed it.....a crime.

No it doesn't. Common sense follows natural law which dictates that we each own our own bodies and everything in them. We each have sole decision making power over our bodies, minds, and lives and can do anything we want with them. Common sense doesn't seem very common with you.

First there is no such thing as an "unborn child". Up until the second they are born, they are a fetus (not a child) and a fetus is not entitled to rights. Second, nobody's rights entitle them to be able to force you to go through surgery, including a fetus if they had rights.

Our rights end where another person's (a fetus is not a person) begin. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. We are each BORN (not before birth) with rights and that rights includes the right to defend our own lives. If a woman were to swallow a live grenade (impressive throat control), it would be no different than taking out a gun and trying to kill people and those whom she was trying to kill would have the natural right to destroy her.

I like the handcuffing to a pole and running away answer.

The situation was different because the woman in the hospital did not violate the rights, person, or property of a non-consenting other.

Absolutely not. That would be saying that a parasite has rights above the host.

Life is not defined by strands of DNA. Life is defined by sentience and by birth. Until the moment of birth, a fetus is a parasite. I know it sounds cold, but it's the truth. To say a fetus not only has rights but that those rights are above the mother's is to say that a parasite has rights and those rights supercede the hosts. In other words, if you have a tapeworm (which has entirely different DNA), the tapeworm has rights and those rights are above yours.

There is no baby one day before birth. Up until the moment of birth, it's not a baby, it's a fetus. And yes, they are very different. In one case the parasite is within the host, and in the next they have ceased being a parasite (at least in the same sense of the word) and are living outside of other beings.

The draft is a direct violation of our rights and a violation of the limited Constitutional authority of the U.S. Government. I hope you're not trying to use this violation of human rights as an excuse to violate the rights of others like pregnant women.

Funny eh? Let me guess? Pro death penalty? Life is sacred until you're born. After that they don't give a shit about you. As long as there is a steady stream of people to get shot at, everything will be fine.

Sorry, but Democrats support the draft too. Hillary Clinton and many democrats are pushing to re-instate the draft. Both of the major parties think government has more of a claim on our lives than we do.

All people are born with the same rights regardless of where they are born. The only thing that changes from location to location is which of your rights are protected, and which are violated.

radar, i have officially added you to my buddy list. you make a lot of sense. it's a shame you have a rep as a looney.

Now try this one. Instead of cosmetic reasons, the woman is a Christian Scientist morally opposed to C-sections. What now? The court has to tread carefully forcing treatment of children of parents of religious sects against their will.

I know I originally brought up the point of Christian Scientists being a similar scenario, but I've since figured out the legal difference.

Often times guilt has to do with the person's state of mind; whether they knew they were committing a crime or not. In the case of Christian Scientists, they believe that not having the surgery is "saving" the child, whereas having the surgery would condemn the child. It's basically a modified insanity plea, and it's why (to my knowledge--feel free to show otherwise) no Christian Scientists have ever been convicted. On the other hand, this woman understood what she was doing and did it anyway.

Make people feel better about what?



fe·tus ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fts)
n. pl. fe·tus·es

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

Basically, my argument stems from society who tends to heavily question the POV and decisions that the "childfree" make about NOT having kids. I feel that those who desire/want kids should be questioned just as hard. I guess I also don't understand how someone, who has just found out they are pregnant, would not do everything in their power to protect that unborn life, and that would continue to protect it once out of the womb. And yet, "we" (childfree) get called all kinds of child-haters, selfish, uncaring...why is it different for parents? What is mind boggling and head explode-y to me is that parents will say they love their child, yet put their child in harms way!

So, I guess that's whay I'm trying to explain when I said what I said. It didn't have anything to do about abortion (even though I am pro-choic) or any type of forced sterilization.

You are my new hero *Grins* That was what I was saying in my response to jinx. I find it funny that if someone says they don't want kids, then all of a sudden it's third degree time with family/friends, etc. But, not one question when someone says that they want kids, even if it's blatently obvious that they shouldn't.

As far as birth control, anyone can go to their local Planned Parenthood. They will work with the person, if what they need requires any payment. IIRC, they allowed me to pay a reduced rate for the Depo that I was on a couple of years ago. I heart them very much. :D

Why would you assume that parents aren't questioned just as hard? Just because you don't experience it?

Putting your child in harms way is incredibly subjective. What you may see as harm (not vaccinating your kids) others see as protection. What you may not see as harm (giving kids soda and McGarbage) other would. Because one doesn't have as much faith in obstetrics as others, they are questioned. But they shouldn't be prosecuted.

Thank you very much. I'll add you to mine also.

And as far has being called a looney, it's fairly common for those who have run out of gas in a debate and been backed into a corner with no escape from the facts to try to dismiss you as being a "looney" rather than trying to come up with an intelligent, logical, cogent argument to prove their side.

This is less painful to them than just admitting I'm right. :)

Endangering a fetus is a crime, if it were not, then she would have been released immediately.

To quote Mark Twain, "Common sense ain't." Natural law actually dicates nothing about rights per se.

"To summarize: the paradigmatic natural law view holds that (1) the natural law is given by God; (2) it is naturally authoritative over all human beings; and (3) it is naturally knowable by all human beings. Further, it holds that (4) the good is prior to the right, that (5) right action is action that responds nondefectively to the good, that (6) there are a variety of ways in which action can be defective with respect to the good, and that (7) some of these ways can be captured and formulated as general rules."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

I will agree but with strong reservations. The line between rights and consideration blur in a situation such as this and to dismiss the need to care for a future person is, I think, terribly shortsighted.

Are you deriving your opinion about the stark difference between the fetus and the child from an established paradigm or is this self-generated? If you're reading it somewhere I'd be interested in reading it myself.

A link would be sufficient.

I do too.

Again this is a sort of grey area, a lack of consent is not dissent. Also, there are circumstances where people incapable of giving consent have both had treatment witheld as well as given. Circumstances vary.

No, it wouldn't. Rights operate on a variable scale.

So monkeys, dogs, cats, spiders, trees, etc. are not alive?

While technically true for the duration of the gestation period, over the lives of the host and the progeny it becomes a case symbiosis.

While I agree that sometimes arbitrary boundaries are necessary, I think that this one may be a bit too much. An organism that doesn't take some precautions for the future is going to have a slim time of it.

While conscription has been shown to be of questionable success it is still a common, and apparently acceptable situation. Comparing the two situations does nothing to further argument in either direction.

You didn't answer the question and are also minimizing the sanctity that people have for the sacrifices of dead service people since the beginning of recorded time.

I don't trust politicians as a matter of course. They're a whole different species of person.

I don't agree that foreigners should have the same constitutional rights as a tax paying citizen.

And as far as the over-arching rights thing goes, see my argument towards the beginning.

What books do you read?

That's not likely to be an issue. Remember - this story made the news.They should have the same constitutional rights, because the Constitution is a set of restrictions on government power, not an enumeration of US citizen rights. They shouldn't get all of the benefits of government services, unless they pay US taxes, though.

Yeah, I get that a lot myself.

*cough*

But seriously, you've made a lot of excellent points... Your views on this matter are alarmingly similar to my own :D. You've just managed to express yours more eloquently.

Whether the knife is a switchblade or a scalpel, a mother is never legally required to put herself in front of one to save her child, unborn or otherwise. Sure, it's morally reprehensible to put a child in grave danger for one's own piddly concerns, but individuals can make decisions about, and pay the consequences for, what happens to one's own person.

In this instance, I think a charge ending with "endangerment" or "neglect" would be good, if for no other purpose than to remove her children from their self-serving mother, and to prevent her from having even more kids.

You're doing the same thing, in the other direction, to make people feel worse about terminating fetuses.

Up until the second they are born, they are a fetus (not a child) and a fetus is not entitled to rights.

So the moment the living being touches air outside of the womb, they are a child? What if the child is born really early, but is still dependant on machines for life, much as a fetus/parasite? I find it odd that until the umbilical cord is cut, a "fetus" is not a "person" despite having all the physical and technical requirements for being one. Once outside the body, the child is still just as dependant on its mother for survival as it was when it was inside her body.

Common sense follows natural law which dictates that we each own our own bodies and everything in them.

Where are you getting this from? From what are you basing "natural law"? From what most everyone else is telling me, our laws in this country are Christian-based.

No, because I highly doubt that they are.

Childfree person: "I don't want kids."
Other: "But why? Don't you want to continue your bloodline? Don't you want to give your parents grandchildren? Isn't that being selfish?"
*although in my case, I've usually gotten, "I don't blame ya!" or "Good...don't!", but I don't like hearing others getting questioned like that.*


Person who wants kids: "I want (insert number) of kids."
Other: (goes into a conversation about how they want kids too, etc., and not "Why?").

Quote:

Putting your child in harms way is incredibly subjective. What you may see as harm (not vaccinating your kids) others see as protection.

But are you going to be committing a crime if you choose not to vaccinate your kids? You chose not vaccinate your kids, right? You're not in jail, so...where's the crime?

Quote:

What you may not see as harm (giving kids soda and McGarbage) other would.

Again, not a crime (although, not good common sense either).

Quote:

Because one doesn't have as much faith in obstetrics as others, they are questioned. But they shouldn't be prosecuted.

Sorry, I just feel there's a certain responsibilty once one finds out they are pregnant to put the child/fetus/zygote's welfare above their own. Never mind that the C-Section is going to leave a scar!
:mad:

why?

it's your right to feel that way, but can you incarcerate someone who does not share this belief?

not many will admit it, but most would put their own survival in front of EVERYONE else's. It's how we're wired. survival instincts. at some point, i think that shifts and is eclipsed by our genetic yearning to continue our blood line ( the only true immortality) and we would sacrifice ourself to save our offspring. But, i don't think this shift occurs until the child has a personality.

Agreed, but in that one is morally responsible to do so, NOT legally.

Edit: ...of course, putting one's own life after a cluster of cells which wouldn't survive on it's own would be silly, so I partially agree, with the caveat that the fetus must be developed to the point where it can be saved should the mother die.

As an exercise in testing where one measures the boundaries of an individual's rights... say there are a pair of conjoined twins who have grown into adulthood. A life-threatening condition develops in twin A which requires a surgical procedure only available in another country. Twin B refuses to travel to that country for his/her own reasons, and likewise refuses to be surgically separated. He/she cannot be convinced to do otherwise of his/her own volition.

Which of the following is MOST morally correct?:

A. Twin A is out of luck.
B. Twin B should be forced to travel to the country so twin A can undergo the surgery.
C. The twins should be surgically separated against Twin B's wishes, so that Twin A may get the life-saving surgery on his/her own.

Not that I really should be feeding this beast of a debate.. heheh. *cough*

Because different terms are incorrect. It is a fetus. That is the correct term.

And again, she did't kill the fetus (by refusing surgery), the fetus was unable to survive to term inside the womb.

that's it in a nutshell.

if there WAS no doctor available, natural selection would not have selcted that child for survival. sucks, but that's the deal.

So, the woman who is pregnant should NOT put the child's welfare above her own (or at least, make sure that the child's health and well being is as "perfect" as possible)??? :confused:

Quote:

not many will admit it, but most would put their own survival in front of EVERYONE else's. It's how we're wired. survival instincts. at some point, i think that shifts and is eclipsed by our genetic yearning to continue our blood line ( the only true immortality) and we would sacrifice ourself to save our offspring. But, i don't think this shift occurs until the child has a personality.

I guess I find it hard to believe that if someone tells me how much they wanted a child, and then proceeds to put the health and welfare of that child in jeopardy.

Because different terms are incorrect. It is a fetus. That is the correct term.

Just to make it more fun, lets call 'em "human beings" regardless if they exist in the womb, are a larva, pupae, worm, adult, whatever.

And again, she did't kill the fetus (by refusing surgery), the fetus was unable to survive to term inside the womb.

I like this logic.

"That man drowned when he fell in the water! Why didn't you jump in and save him?"

"Eh, sorry -- he just couldn't survive once in the water."

That, right there, is some outstanding natural law: The ability to survive on your own!