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?