Does the fetus have an inalienable right to be in the body of its’ host against the host’s will?
The host is well-advised to keep the doors closed to avoid any unwanted guests. If a guest is invited (intentionally or unintentionally) to stay and after a while in order to get rid of them, you murder them, then the police might frown upon this reasoning.
On a more serious note, are you asking for a logical answer or something from religion or legal perspective? Most of the answers will take into account extraneous factors like the health of the host or the age of the fetus before making any such determination.
Hmm. Well I didn't put this in the religion forum, that's for sure. My preference would be to keep this discussion scientifically respectable at least. Applied ethics should be sufficient to cast some light upon it. If anybody wants to discuss the religion factor, there was plenty of space in the religion forum to do so, last time I checked.
Right. Now put aside cases like rape for the time being at least. Depending on how far we get, this may or may not affect the final conclusion. But for the moment we deal with with cases with intentional entry only.
[quote]
Originally posted by Peacemaker:
If a guest is invited (intentionally or unintentionally) to stay and after a while in order to get rid of them, you murder them, then the police might frown upon this reasoning.
[/quote]
Firstly, you have touched upon the notion that the fetus resides in her womb only through her permission. Fine. But how does this help in answering the question? My question was regarding whether the fetus has a right to remain in the woman's womb in the first place. Does it?
Secondly, you have already equated abortion to murder. But I see no qualification for this assertion in your remarks. Your move.
Stand upright, speak thy thought, declare,
The truth thou hast that all may share,
Be bold, proclaim it everywhere,
They only live who dare.
Actually I didn't equate abortion with murder. I just gave an analogy of 'guest' from the word 'host' which you used.
If conception had been a totally spontaneous process with no involvement of mother (someting just happened inside her body for which she had no control), then the question whether the fetus has a right to be in that body will be more valid.
However, as we know, that mother shares responsibility for conception and hence bringing that fetus into her own body, so the equation becomes different. The rights of the fetus are thus determined from a different stand point.
From a purely ethical point of view, I can draw similarities between a mother giving birth to a child, take care of him and after 3 years kill him saying it was my child living in my home, feeding of my resources so I can do whatever I wish. Will you accept this claim?
Question being, when does a child start having some rights on its own? Do these rights menifest themselves only when the child is born? Or is it at some earlier or later date? Jurists have debated it for a long time from all points of view. Some have drawn lines in the sand by saying that when a fetus reaches a certain time in its development stage, then it gets some rights of its own, including the critical "right to life". By collective wisdom that line was drawn at approximately 120 days after conception, based on scientific and religious evidence.
In this argument I am not taking into account cases where mother's life is endangered. As someone pointed out that if an endangered animal species can only feed out of an endangered plant species, who do you save.
[This message has been edited by Peacemaker (edited July 13, 2001).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Peacemaker:
Actually I didn't equate abortion with murder. I just gave an analogy of 'guest' from the word 'host' which you used.
[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand. If “guest” was not used to replace the term “fetus” then you have completely lost me.
[quote]
Originally posted by Peacemaker:
If conception had been a totally spontaneous process with no involvement of mother (someting just happened inside her body for which she had no control), then the question whether the fetus has a right to be in that body will be more valid.
However, as we know, that mother shares responsibility for conception and hence bringing that fetus into her own body, so the equation becomes different. The rights of the fetus are thus determined from a different stand point.
[/quote]
No. That doesn’t make sense. Would it be the the fetus' fault that the girl was raped? That could be your first scenario (over something which she had no control of). Similarly, the same question regarding the fetus applies in the case of a “spontaneous process”. Does the fetus choose its means of conception? Of course not. So why change the status of the fetus, simply because the woman did not choose to become pregnant? Either the fetus has a right to be inside a woman by its nature, or it does not - the issue of whether the girl chose to have sex, or not, is irrelevant.
I think the issue is a bit more complicated than what you have set down. Let me explain to you one possible stance on this issue.
[quote]
Originally posted by Peacemaker:
From a purely ethical point of view, I can draw similarities between a mother giving birth to a child, take care of him and after 3 years kill him saying it was my child living in my home, feeding of my resources so I can do whatever I wish.
[/quote]
Fair enough. But I don’t see these similarities here. A pro-choice person could say that children, unlike fetuses, do have rights. A child, like an adult, exists as a physically and physiologically independent entity. A fetus cannot exist as an entity on its own. It survives only through the sustenance of the host. That is, the permission given by the host to the fetus for the right to her body is the deciding feature here. Of course it would be. The host holds the full right to exercise her choice in this matter – it is her body after all. Just as it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant. Now lets just assume, for argument’s sake, that a fetus had the right to life. But that "right" is only possible by the violation of the actual right of the pregnant woman to her body. How can any alleged "right" that by nature entails the violation of the rights of another being, be a right? Doesn’t make sense, does it? By contrast, a child's right to life does not contradict the rights of anyone else. So the similarity in the scenario above vanishes. The two cases are poles apart.
But you raise a good point, er, up to a point. In truth, a fetus isn't a person and no one thinks it is - that's why we don't have funerals for miscarriages. And a few-day-old embryo isn't much closer to being a person than a skin cell - which, after all, can become a person if cloned. So how can abortion amount to murder? Murder is enacted against another human being, which holds the right to life. And that human being isn’t owned by anybody. Even kids are not owned by their parents. The concept of ownership and guardianship are quite distinct from each other. People can’t be owned by parents till the end of their lives with their actions being evoked with only the parents permission. Doesn’t make sense. But a fetus is only a piece of human tissue. And the host owns that. Even if, for argument’s sake, we assume that it amounts to murder, how do we resolve the above paradox regarding the alleged corresponding “right to life” of the fetus?
[quote]
Originally posted by Peacemaker:
Question being, when does a child start having some rights on its own? Is it, when he is born or is it at some earlier or later date. Jurists have debated it for a long time from all points of view. Some have drawn lines in the sand by saying that when a fetus reaches a certain time in its development stage, then it gets some rights of its own, including the critical "right to life". By collective wisdom that line was drawn at approximately 120 days after conception, based on scientific and religious evidence.
[/quote]
This is where things start to get messy. With religion, of course, there is no argument as it is (by definition?) an inherently unverifiable system, at least in the axioms it posits. So that leads nowhere into any logical debate. Which is why I am sceptical of its relevance here. But sure, I don’t mind if you want to discuss it. I suppose it is a concept that has as much validity as any other (that is, it's purely an ipse dixit).
Assuming that the “right to life” is inherited at some predetermined point in time, some time between conception and birth, we are still left with that problem of the fetuses “right to life” leading to the conflicting rights outlined above. It is resolved if we say that the right to life exists at the moment of birth. Which is not easy to accept for many groups of people. Tricky, isn’t it?
Alright. I’m off to sleep. I’m going to somewhere tomorrow so I may come back here rather late to check up on this thread. Until then, take care.
I am in total agreement with pro choice ... its better to terminate a pregnacy rather then bring a baby into the world in which the mother cannot or not willing to take good care of the baby...
Both economically and socially this is the best option ... one less baby for the orphanage and one less criminal (assuming most orphaned kids do not get well upbringing).
Even religiously ... women has the right to the child until it is in her body. Once its out it becomes an entity of it's ownself and as such can not be killed. However since during pregnancy it remains inside the woman it is upto her to decide wat to do with it
To do in life is to appreciate it. To live life is to lose it. I dont know what I am saying so I will stop saying it.
Paye lago guru Ji,
Asalamo-alykum,kya haal chaal hain…
You don’t want me to start now,do u?
SP,
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/flower1.gif
Note from Admin: Keep your personal vendettas out of the forum, please. If you have something to contribute to this discussion, then do so. Otherwise, just pass by without polluting it. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by Admin (edited August 27, 2001).]
sweety_pie. My dear child. 
Be my guest. Trash my argument like there is no tomorrow.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/flower1.gif
[This message has been edited by Renaissance (edited August 26, 2001).]
**Note from Admin: Responding to such comments only encourages the pollution. Please practice ignoring them.
**
[This message has been edited by Admin (edited August 27, 2001).]
SP,
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/flower1.gif
Dear Admin there is no personal avange that was just my way of sying hello,long time no see,
[This message has been edited by sweety_pie (edited August 28, 2001).]
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/disgust.gif
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smooth.gif
I dont see the question ,or any point so far .
If you want to relieve the man & woman of responsibility then go ahead ,cause whatever you want for the sake of RIGHTS.BUT if you know,— BEFORE rights comes RESPONSIBILITIES & lets say IMHO. ,IF YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE YOU ARE NOT DESERVING OF RIGHTS EITHER ,
i know not all will agree but thats my general answer to any question that you ultimately arrive at.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/supercool.gif
Woh afsaana jise anjaam tak, laana na ho mumkin
Use ek KHoobsoorat moR dekar, chhoRna achha
[This message has been edited by FYI (edited August 29, 2001).]
You seem to have started this topic by saying that you wanted to keep this discussion on scientific basis but as you go along with your lengthy explanations, you are embroiled in religion, and rightfully so.
Reproductive issues involving the question of begining of life, do involve religion not because its a part of life but that science does not have full explanation for many aspects of our life.
You have to decide whether to believe that life begins at conception or at birth. Once you have reached that decision, the answer to your question becomes very simple.
Human rights begin when one is considered a human by a particular society. If life begins at conception, then fetus is human and has all the rigths including the inalienable right to stay in mothers uterus till it is capable of surviving on its own. If life begins at birth, then fetus is nothing more than a bunch of cells to start and a piece of flesh till birth and therefore, has no rights of its own. As you say in many of your posts, go figure.
[This message has been edited by Mullah_DoPiazza (edited August 29, 2001).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Renaissance:
Does the fetus have an inalienable right to be in the body of its' host against the host's will?
[/quote]
Yes the fetus has an alienable right to be there....he/she didnt come there on his/her own.
FYI. That doesn't make sense. How can a person go about stipulating responsibilities without defining the rights in the first place? What if the premature responsibilities that you banged down on somebody's shoulders offended their rights? Or the rights of somebody else? Persisting in this behaviour would amount to another case of coercion. God knows we see more than enough of this all the time. I believe that responsibilities arise when one undertakes them voluntarily. Not only that, I believe that in the absence of explicit contracts i.e. rights, people who lecture other people on their "responsibilities" are always up to no good. The issue of abortion is not a joke. Like us all, I'm sure you realise that.
Mullah_DoPiazza. No doubt that this issue vexes me. I agree it mirrors the old theological debate on the question of when the human being acquires a soul. But this is really a "God of the Gaps" argument. In my view, it's like this: a true scientist before Darwin could have said, "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a sufficiently good explanation, so we have to wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can easily understand that such a position, although logically sound, would have left them feeling somewhat unsatisfied. But, in a similar vein of thought, I am quite willing to wait for science to focus itself onto finding the critical juncture when the fetus becomes sentient - the quality that makes us human. It seems that what we want to know is when it has a brain with the spark of consciousness. The question arises, however, is religion a viable alternative to provide guidelines here? Why should it be? It's based on an unverifiable system, as I explained before. We might as well throw a coin to decide. Invoking God as some blanket explanation of what we cannot explain is basically making that God the friend of ignorance. Surely, if God is to be found, it must be through what we discover about the world, not what we fail to discover in science. So my preference would be to stay away from religion as much as possible here.
[quote]
Originally posted by Mullah_DoPiazza:
You have to decide whether to believe that life begins at conception or at birth. Once you have reached that decision, the answer to your question becomes very simple.
Human rights begin when one is considered a human by a particular society. If life begins at conception, then fetus is human and has all the rigths including the inalienable right to stay in mothers uterus till it is capable of surviving on its own. If life begins at birth, then fetus is nothing more than a bunch of cells to start and a piece of flesh till birth and therefore, has no rights of its own.
[/quote]
It's a slippery slope. Which eventually leads to one of the two absolutist positions you mentioned. One of the problems with the argument I have given above (although no one has mentioned it in the one-and-half months since it was started), a newborn baby is surely the same thing just as it was before birth. There is some good evidence that the baby can respond to sound - especially its mother's voice. It can suck its thumb. Occasionally there are some brain wave patterns that occur in the third trimester. But it's hard to maintain the notion that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why then, should it be murder to kill the infant the day after it was born but not the day before?
And this starts to interfere with the conflicting rights between the mother and child which I outlined earlier. Irrespective of how many abortions occur in the third trimester (many of which turn out to be miscarriage and miscalculation), third-trimester abortions are a test of the limits of the pro-choice argument. Does a woman's innate right to control her own body include the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child?
This vexes me. And I have to admit my own personal answer to this question is no. I think good policy on abortion would hinge on the question of when the fetus first becomes a perceiving being. When is "someone in there"?
I get the impression that you are a doctor. You must face the same question when you have a patient on life support. What gives you the indication that he is a living person anymore? I guess you would be interested in whether his brain has ceased functioning. Similarly with the fetus, it would be of interest to know when there exists any indications of conciousness. For example, what is your position on anencephalics? These are babies tragically born with only a brain stem and not the rest of the brain. They are not treated as living humans, as you may know. Even for viable anencephalics, there's no purpose to providing treatment. They are left to die.
From reading around, it's not clear to me when the fetus can perceive, but it generally seems doubtful that it can before 22 weeks. There is a book called The Abortion Issue edited by Craig Donnellan that gives some indication here. Apparently, it says that's the earliest time anatomic studies give for the first sensory fibers reaching the early brain. By 25 weeks, however, neonates show complex facial reactions to stimuli that reflect higher brain - possibly conscious? - activity. So somewhere between 22 and 25 weeks, the fetus does become a distinctly different being. This is why I said I would be prepared to wait for scientists to conduct more in-depth study to identify this critical juncture. Does this seem consistent with what religions say? Probably not. So much for religion.
[quote]
Originally posted by Mullah_DoPiazza:
As you say in many of your posts, go figure.
[/quote]
I didn't realise that I had so many fans already. :)
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Renaissance:
Mullah_DoPiazza. No doubt that this issue vexes me. I agree it mirrors the old theological debate on the question of when the human being acquires a soul. But this is really a "God of the Gaps" argument. In my view, it's like this: a true scientist before Darwin could have said, "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a sufficiently good explanation, so we have to wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can easily understand that such a position, although logically sound, would have left them feeling somewhat unsatisfied. But, in a similar vein of thought, I am quite willing to wait for science to focus itself onto finding the critical juncture when the fetus becomes sentient - the quality that makes us human. It seems that what we want to know is when it has a brain with the spark of consciousness. The question arises, however, is religion a viable alternative to provide guidelines here? Why should it be? It's based on an unverifiable system, as I explained before. We might as well throw a coin to decide. Invoking God as some blanket explanation of what we cannot explain is basically making that God the friend of ignorance. Surely, if God is to be found, it must be through what we discover about the world, not what we fail to discover in science. So my preference would be to stay away from religion as much as possible here.
Religion shouldn’t be an alternative to science but can provide some guidelines when science is confronted with uncertain matters. These religious alternatives may not be as absolute as we would like them to be but still they are temporary crutches for us to stand on till science can find the answer that we look for. Sometimes when confronted with such delicate issues of reproduction, we may not have all that patience to wait for a complex biological design to unfold in front of us. Scientific knowledge reveals itself through prolonged, painstaking and time consuming efforts and may not happen in our life time. Religion may have some flaws in it but so does science. Religion is not verifiable in a scientific way but there is enough evidence around us and either you believe it or you don’t. Sure we would like to see God through our discoveries but what to do in the meantime. Why not acknowledge the presence of God first based on what we already have and use that to console ourselves till we can make further discoveries.
It's a slippery slope. Which eventually leads to one of the two absolutist positions you mentioned. One of the problems with the argument I have given above (although no one has mentioned it in the one-and-half months since it was started), a newborn baby is surely the same thing just as it was before birth. There is some good evidence that the baby can respond to sound - especially its mother's voice. It can suck its thumb. Occasionally there are some brain wave patterns that occur in the third trimester. But it's hard to maintain the notion that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why then, should it be murder to kill the infant the day after it was born but not the day before?
It may be a slippery slope but what’s the alternative? We cannot assume an arbitrary position somewhere in the middle of the pregnancy and call it the beginning of life. How do we know that? What access do we have to the fetus when inside. All these so called facts are based on indirect knowledge derived from various statistical calculations and here you see the limitations of science. It is quite possible that we use the science in the same way as we use the religion i.e. to satisfy our pre- concieved notions or what we would like to believe, and if that is true, I am not surprised.
And this starts to interfere with the conflicting rights between the mother and child which I outlined earlier. Irrespective of how many abortions occur in the third trimester (many of which turn out to be miscarriage and miscalculation), third-trimester abortions are a test of the limits of the pro-choice argument. Does a woman's innate right to control her own body include the right to kill a near-term fetus who is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a newborn child? This vexes me. And I have to admit my own personal answer to this question is no. I think good policy on abortion would hinge on the question of when the fetus first becomes a perceiving being. When is "someone in there"?
You raise an interesting question regarding the status of the fetus a day before birth. Pheno/genotypically they are identical but the one inside is still dependant on his mother (or the host as you called it) for sustenance of its life. Miracle of birth as some would call it, is exactly that. A child is born, was totally dependant on another human being for sustenance of life and within a minute becomes an independent human living on its own. Now science does have some explanation on what triggers the spontaneous breathing but did we know that in the beginning? We learnt that gradually but what did we do in the meantime? We used religion to console ourselves and thats what we do now. What right does the mother have to kill the unborn? If life begins at conception, then she commits murder and doesn’t make any difference what the gestational age of the fetus is. After all it is a future child. Now we get into trouble because by accepting this notion of conception, we open up the flood gates. Should we now prosecute the mother who smokes, uses drugs or refuses care, because she is now endangering the welfare of the child or exposing him to all these noxious stimuli and commiting child abuse. Should we now prosecute the doctor in whose care somehow fetus dies before birth? Did he commit murder by negligence? There is no easy answer, is there?
I get the impression that you are a doctor. You must face the same question when you have a patient on life support. What gives you the indication that he is a living person anymore? I guess you would be interested in whether his brain has ceased functioning. Similarly with the fetus, it would be of interest to know when there exists any indications of conciousness. For example, what is your position on anencephalics? These are babies tragically born with only a brain stem and not the rest of the brain. They are not treated as living humans, as you may know. Even for viable anencephalics, there's no purpose to providing treatment. They are left to die.
Anencephalic birth is a preventable tragedy and shouldn’t be happening anymore with our current technolgy. These newborns are usually born prematurely and that becomes a double jeopardy. These day they shouldn’t be left to die. They are resuscitated and their organs, with the consent of their parents, can be donated to other needy children. So out of this tragedy of anencephaly for one family comes a ray of hope for another. Should we be asking God as to why he created a life like that and then took it back in a few minutes? Here you have a situation that religion may not be able to answer. So the whole point is that both science and religion are intwined and are not completely understood by us. The difference is that in science we rely on facts but religion is a blind faith.
Regarding life support issues there are specific guidelines designed by every institution and also there are proxy laws which have to be followed.
From reading around, it's not clear to me when the fetus can perceive, but it generally seems doubtful that it can before 22 weeks. There is a book called The Abortion Issue edited by Craig Donnellan that gives some indication here. Apparently, it says that's the earliest time anatomic studies give for the first sensory fibers reaching the early brain. By 25 weeks, however, neonates show complex facial reactions to stimuli that reflect higher brain - possibly conscious? - activity. So somewhere between 22 and 25 weeks, the fetus does become a distinctly different being. This is why I said I would be prepared to wait for scientists to conduct more in-depth study to identify this critical juncture. Does this seem consistent with what religions say? Probably not. So much for religion.
As I said above, all this knowledge is indirect but it gives us some idea. Parents when confronted with the idea of imminent premature birth, usually are not concerned whether the child would be able to react to stimuli or percieve anything. The question is always whether the baby will survive and if the baby can survive, then come rest of the issues regarding the quality of life it wiil have. Also when we talk about in terms of weeks, we assume that that duration and frequency of every one’s cycle is the same, which is a fallacy and therefore there is a built in mistake in calculation of pregnancy but I’ll leave it for now. As early as 12 weeks, fetuses have been seen to respond by movement to various stimuli like pressure, noise etc. The movements may not be that significant but neither are the muscles so well developed, and that tells us that development of nervous system alone is useless if there is no end organ strong enough to respond.
I think I have rambled on quite a bit for now. This is not the begining of life for me but it sure is the begining of a long weekend and I better get the hell outta here because religion doesn't run the airline or does it?
URL.PLeazeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/mad3.gif
The above post by Piazza ,looks like fom a anti abortionist web site.Who is asking those leading question?If so what is url.
Moderetor isnt there policy to supply with url of every cut & paste .
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/confused.gif
Woh afsaana jise anjaam tak, laana na ho mumkin
Use ek KHoobsoorat moR dekar, chhoRna achha
[This message has been edited by FYI (edited September 06, 2001).]
Did you get a divine revelation that this is cut and paste? I’m not a pakistani thief like you and many others with multiple handles, who go around stealing articles from the web. Get a grip on yourself.