View Single Post
Old 04-02-2004, 08:36 AM   #2 (permalink)
lurkette
My future is coming on
 
lurkette's Avatar
 
Moderator Emeritus
Location: east of the sun and west of the moon
Quote:
Originally posted by tecoyah
It is now Law in the United States, that a fetus is protected from harm while in the womb of its' mother. Would it not follow that should a woman lose her child, due to a fall or other unfortunate situation, she could be charged with a crime against the life she carried?
I'm not sure but I think the fetus is protected if the mother is harmed in the commission of a crime against her, the mother.

Quote:
Unlikely as it may seem, the recent case of a woman criticized for waiting on a C- section and losing one of her twins, is case in point. She could now, very easily be charged with a serious crime for her choice to do as she pleased with her body(I am aware she was a freak in the eyes of most people).
Whew, that's a shitty case. At what point do the motivations of the mother come into play? In this case, I think she didn't want a cesarean for cosmetic reasons (which is why there was such a fuss), but what if it was on religious grounds, or because she has a fear of surgery? Plus, we let selfish, shallow people have children all the time and fuck them up. Why should a fetus have more rights than an actual human?

Quote:
My questions are as follows:
In the case of miscarriage, is the mother guilty of manslaughter?
Imagine that a mother can't afford prenatal care for some reason, and has a miscarriage that could arguably have been prevented. Is she guilty? What about her employer who didn't provide health insurance? What if she had access to prenatal care but chose not to use it? I can see this getting way the fuck out of hand. What if she had gestational diabetes but kept eating ice cream anyhow?

Quote:
What is the underlying motivation to qualify an undeveloped human as sentient,thus giving it rights it has no way of comprehending?
We give rights to others who have no way of comprehending those rights - infants, children, people with mental disabilities, etc. The issue isn't sentience or capacity to understand, it's the decision to declare that something that isn't technically an individual yet (do we give all embryos social security numbers on conception? Can I collect SS death benefits if I have a miscarriage? /callous smartass mode) has rights.

I predict this conversation deteriorates into the usual pointless argument when life begins in 3....2....1....
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France
lurkette is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360