Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

You cannot force a medical operation, but you can sentence a crime. Drinking heavily while pregnant should be an offence, for instance. And I do think that refusing treatement could be one too, in some cases, as long as the prescribed treatement wouldn't have treathened the mother's life or physical integrity.

[Helgoland]

a woman's bodily autonomy trumps

Why is bodily autonomy such a big deal? Getting rid of it as an absolute would have many beneficial side-effects - for example, it would allow us to introduce mandatory blood 'donations' or mandatory testing (not the actual procedure!) to become a bone marrow donor.
Why is the body fundamentally different from the rest of the stuff we have power over? Why shouldn't bodily autonomy be like privacy - there''s a right to it, but in certain circumstances the right can be overruled?

[MonkeyHead]

As ones own body could be the only thing one could be said to truly own. As such, why should someone be expected to compromise this?

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Well, how far does the mother's bodily autonomy extend? Does the fetus have no bodily rights until it is born & the umbilical cord severed?
Without bodily rights, does that mean a mother can terminate the child at any time, up to and after birth but before the umbilical is cut/the after-birth is expelled?

When does the child gain personhood/bodily rights, and on what is this based?

[Descan]

Personally, I view the mother as more important because she's a fully developed person while the baby can't really do anything or take care of itself for at least 5-7 years.

That is, between the two of them, the baby is dependent on the mother but the mother is not dependent on the baby.

Not entirely sure what that means in terms of abortion, I don't think killing a born kid because the mum doesn't want it any more is good, and I think that extends backwards to viable fetuses, at that point adoption to a known loving home is preferable (this is where gay adoption comes in especially), but if it's a choice between the mums life and the fetus/baby/child, I'm likeliest to choose the mum in almost all circumstances. And I don't agree with the idea of arresting the mum or of forcing her into medical procedures (especially ones that can kill her) to get the child out.

[Helgoland]

Helgo, I'm kinda confused, why would you force a person to have testing for bone marrow but NOT force them to have the surgery? Seems rather unnecessary, doesn't it? If you're not gonna donate, just testing it's gonna wast everyone's time.

It forces people past their lazyness. I never got tested for bone marrow donation, and neither have millions of people - and it's just a simple swab test. Lots of these would do the actual transplant if they were told they were needed.
But sure, why not mandate the transplantation operation itself. It's quite a bit more invasive, but the basic principle still holds.

Descan, don't you get into all kinds of trouble applying the same reasoning to old and disabled people?

[Redzephyr01]

People have the right to make choices about their own bodies.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Helgo, well, old & disabled don't share their body with their care-provider.
What's trickier is how to handle handicapped people if personhood is based on functional brain activity.

Descan, but do the mother's bodily rights trump her infant's life?
If the mother is repeatedly throwing herself down stairs at 40 weeks preggers, should she be arrested?
If she's taken an extreme dose of drugs or alcohol, should she be charged with attempted/actual murder? Should they perform a medical intervention to save the baby's life (if it has one) against her will? Or let the drugs run their course, let the baby be killed, and arrest/charge her afterward?

[Helgoland]

People have the right to make choices about their own bodies.

But where should that right stop? That's the core of the question I'm asking.

[lorb]

If a fetus is a (legal) person than the mother (arguably) has a "Duty to rescue". Note that in most modern jurisdiction rescuers need not endanger themselves to protect others, even if they have a duty to rescue otherwise.

[Sheb]

Yeah, as I said, it's a complicated issue, even more so when you get into the gritty detail of individual cases.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

I hate to interrupt this discussion but,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/10/obama-to-the-fcc-adopt-the-strongest-possible-rules-on-net-neutrality-including-title-ii/

Do you guys think the FCC will follow his advice?

[Graknorke]

Do you guys think the FCC will follow his advice?

No.

[Bauglir]

No, I don't think that the Internet will be regulated as a utility. Sadly.

Our arguments about abortion more closely reflect real-world possibilities than that

[Angle]

I don't think it's really fair to blame our politicians. I'd blame the people who use their economic power to debase our government, or the general populace, who refuse to give a fuck.