Is it s legitimate person with rights? Was just watching one of those law dramas (SVU) where one of the issues was a feteus is not a person with rights as long as its inside the woman’a body cause otherwise there could be no abortion since as a person the child would have a right to live.
The current law assumes the Feteus does not have any rights and rights only exist for people (the fetues not been recognized as one).
It is a fairly complex issue in the US because you cant have it both ways.
In my view, the fetus does not have any rights other than those the mother may choose to bestow upon it. Befre it is born it is merely a lump of flesh.
I think maybe you have to classify "alive" and "rights" too. If you are talking abuot the "right" of the fetus to live, then does that over ride the rights of the mother over her own body?
And then do personal circumstances not dictate whose right are to be wavered? Ie a rape baby. In those circumstances does the right of the fetus over ride the rights of the mother? Some poeple argue that the child can be given up for adoption, but then which woman will want to carry something she will hate inside of her for 9 months and then go through the pain of birth, and delay the healing process?
So what rights exactly would you choose to give and over whom and who would be responsible, would it have the same rights as a chlid and be represented as such or would it be seen as the simpliest version of human, with its rights only being to live. Would neglect to your "child" be an offence in that case? It is well known that many women drink etc till their full term. Slippy slope, no.
I believe the mother has more rights than the fetus not least because she has actually been born.
It depends on the definition of the word fetus. I don't know the details but after a certain period of time after conception, the fetus is considered alive at which point he/she is entitled to certain rights as a human being.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by hiccup: *
In my view, the fetus does not have any rights other than those the mother may choose to bestow upon it. Befre it is born it is merely a lump of flesh.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. What about a fetus of 24-28 weeks (or any other premature)??? according to your definition it's 'just a lump of flesh', but it CAN live on its own if it were brought out of the womb via a section or the natural way.
A lump of flesh in the sense that it is not yet a person. I am aware that the word person also needs definition. However although "it" could "survive" prematurely the premature child still does not have rights (in my view) outside those linked directly to the mother, i.e. it has a right to be born because the mother wishes so, if on the other hand she does not wish it so, then no, the fetus has no rights.
The mother should have a choice reguarding wheither she wants to give birth. She should not be forced into it, this leads to backstreet abortions, and is the reason abortion was made legal in the first place.
In my most humble opinion, no one is a person until they are born, before that date potential does not count.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by hiccup: *
A lump of flesh in the sense that it is not yet a person. I am aware that the word person also needs definition. However although "it" could "survive" prematurely the premature child still does not have rights (in my view) outside those linked directly to the mother, i.e. it has a right to be born **because* the mother wishes so, if on the other hand she does not wish it so, then no, the fetus has no rights.
The mother should have a choice reguarding wheither she wants to give birth. She should not be forced into it, this leads to backstreet abortions, and is the reason abortion was made legal in the first place.
In my most humble opinion, no one is a person until they are born, before that date potential does not count.
[/QUOTE]
You must be coming from a secular viewpoint because most religious viewpoints differ from this. The fetus is a living breathing human being, not just a lump of flesh.
I do believe if you poke it, it feels pain.
From a secular point of view though, if one is not to believe in the concept of souls and such then yes, you could argue that its just a lump of flesh. But still, that lump of flesh is going to grow up to be a living breathing human being, and if it was allowed to live would it grant you the right to terminate its life ?
The topic of a woman having control over such aspects of her body is a touchy feely one. Yes the woman has every right to her body, but perhaps she should think of the consquences before giving birth ?
Pregnancy due to rape would perhaps be the one area where these moralities blur for me. Because then its not as black or white as the other cases. I believe islamic ruling on abortion is to only do it if it threatens the mothers life, unless you do it before the fetus has a soul, a time period which is clearly defined in islam but escapes me at the moment.
Is the fact that the fetus in the womans body the reason why you think it does not have rights or is it its complete dependence on the woman for survival?
I guess one way to equate this to something else that is rather controversial is euthanasia or sucide. Most laws would forcefully prevent it from occuring, so a person does not really have much freedom of doing what they want there. I am not sure if that can be compared directly to a womans rights or a childs right but similar issues at stake.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by hiccup: *
, i.e. it has a right to be born **because* the mother wishes so, if on the other hand she does not wish it so, then no, the fetus has no rights.
....
In my most humble opinion, no one is a person until they are born, before that date potential does not count.
[/QUOTE]
another hypothetical but realistic situation:
in your eyes, is there a difference between an a terme baby (which is bound to be born in a couple of days) that is killed inside the womb cuz the mother wanted to, or get it out first and then kill it, cuz the mother wants to. According to your statements there is. Whereas in fact there is no difference, because why would it matter where you kill the child: inside the womb or outside it?
and according to you, a baby outside the womb cannot be killed, cuz it then gets its rights. And as i showed here there is also no difference between a baby born and a baby almost to be born (like in a few days or a few hours*). So a baby almost to be born has implicitly got it rights as well. This can be extrapolated to a baby to be born inside weeks....question rises where to put the cut-off. Clearly one cannot put it at birth-no-brith. So they take as cut-off the amount of weeks a baby can statistically have a good chance of survival outside the womb: 25 weeks
*one could go as far as to say that suppose a woman is IN DELIVERY. There is complete disclosure and the child can be born any minute now. The water has already leaked, and birth is imminent. Can a mother still decide to kill the child?????? Suppose the child is already halve born: the head is outside....can the mother still decide to kill it???? According to you, i guess, she is allowed.....
Its not a lump of flesh. Lump of flesh is something like wart that you can have removed, it has no life or soul. A baby is a human being.