Print

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

[Vector]

Ooh, in the case of the drugged-up mom & impending damage to the fetus: if not surgery, what about other non-voluntary/forced treatments? Say a Narcan injection, or somehow force-feeding a self-poisoned lady activated charcoal?

the fuck is this "ooh?" I am enjoying this a lot less than you seem to be.

[LordSlowpoke]

Ooh, in the case of the drugged-up mom & impending damage to the fetus: if not surgery, what about other non-voluntary/forced treatments? Say a Narcan injection, or somehow force-feeding a self-poisoned lady activated charcoal?

the fuck is this "ooh?" I am enjoying this a lot less than you seem to be.

shit you're the one who brought something that's got nothing left to discuss in it and expected it to be discussed

don't blame the guy who's trying to deliver anything i mean it's pretty obvious he's pulling extremes out of his ass

[Angle]

Well no, tack is actually the person who brought on the latest bought of discussion, not vector.

[Leafsnail]

Ooh, in the case of the drugged-up mom & impending damage to the fetus: if not surgery, what about other non-voluntary/forced treatments? Say a Narcan injection, or somehow force-feeding a self-poisoned lady activated charcoal?

No.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Vector, (and lsp? not sure if you're being snide with the 'ass-pulling'), if talking about this kind of thing affects you adversely, you're not forced to read. I can spoiler more sensitive content if you'd like.
But these kinds of extreme cases, while exceedingly rare, do happen in real life, and it's these kinds of cases that break codified law. The minute technical possibilities are what's important when you're trying to draft this kinda stuff.

@Leafsnail
If the fetus does gain personhood while in the womb though, why should the law see attempted feticide any different from attempted infanticide?

Hm, what about in cases where the woman owns her own aircraft?

So where does her body end and the fetus' begin? Does the fetus own their body when they gain personhood? If yes, why shouldn't taking harmful drugs that can cross the placental barrier constitute a criminal action by the mother? If no,

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

we're back to the 'can the woman kill the child in the few minutes after birth where the child is still physically connected to the mother'?

[Vector]

In a case where I own an aircraft... what? They can force me to take charcoal? LOL

[Helgoland]

In a case where I own an aircraft... what? They can force me to take charcoal? LOL

Way to avoid the issue, Vec.

Core problem: A child right before birth is no different from a child right after birth, so endangering a viable child must be on the same moral and juristic level as endangering an infant, i.e. a fully grown person - because you don't want to go the Peter Singer "Infanticide is totally moral" route.
I don't see what's wrong with Grizzly's examples, even if they're a bit forced: The choice between mother and late-term (nobody's talking about the first three months here) child is the same as between any other two people, with the added 'Matroshka' difficulty. But engaging in unnecessarily risky behaviour and killing the child in the process should certainly count as negligent manslaughter or whatever the English term is.
How about this as a rough guide:
1-3 months: We're certain this is not a person. Abortions etc. are fine.
3-6 months: We don't really know if it's a person, so we'll err on the side of caution. No abortions, but the fetus isn't counted as a whole person when pitted against the mother.
6-9 months: It's a person now, and thus has equal rights to the mother. When having to choose between mother and child, it's probably still sensible to give slightly more weight to the mother's well-being.
Do note that I know next to nothing about the finer details of gestation, so the exact times (especially regarding the last trimester) could be off. There's still some points left: What about alcohol during the first trimester? There isn't a person yet who can be harmed, but there will be in the future, unless an abortion takes place. There's probably analogous situations for which there's already precedent, though.

[Leafsnail]

If the fetus does gain personhood while in the womb though, why should the law see attempted feticide any different from attempted infanticide?

They only gain personhood under stupid legal systems that regularly put the lives of pregnant women in danger.

Hm, what about in cases where the woman owns her own aircraft?

You're allowed to put yourself in danger if you want.

So where does her body end and the fetus' begin? Does the fetus own their body when they gain personhood? If yes, why shouldn't taking harmful drugs that can cross the placental barrier constitute a criminal action by the mother? If no,

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

we're back to the 'can the woman kill the child in the few minutes after birth where the child is still physically connected to the mother'?

If someone has chosen to carry their baby to term then they have responsibilities as a parent, and it's probably not unreasonable to include "don't give your child horrible alcohol/drug related problems when they're born" among them.  You could probably invoke some kind of neglect law against that.

Dunno why you spoiled the last part or what you're getting at with that, it's entirely irrelevant to the stupid hypotheticals you're concocting (and also the answer is obviously no, even if there's a connection it's not part of her body anymore).

[Helgoland]

So her fingers aren't part of her body because they're not inside? What about my penis? Is it not part of my body?

EDIT: HER FINGERS! NOT MINE! Ohmygodohmygodohmygod...

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Oh god helgoland >.<

@leafsnail
Keep in mind the hypotheticals are set in late-term pregnancy.
As helgo said in the post before, the baby right outside the womb is no different than it was just before it came out.
So does being birthed magically make the baby a person? Does a C-section have the same magic? What about vat-grown babies?
Can a mother do whatever she pleases with the child right up until 'it' is no longer 'part of her body', (since it hasn't gotten personhood yet and therefore has no protections under the law)?

You can endanger yourself, but can you endanger the second person sharing your body? This comes down to when personhood is granted.

Ah now we're getting into the same territory as 'injury' during the first trimester- 'ex post facto' law where the parent's actions aren't illegal while they're doing it, and the state can't stop them from doing it, but later on it becomes retro-actively illegal after the baby's been born & the damage has been done.
I spoiled it as it's a rather charged line, which is something I offered to do for Vector earlier in the post.
Why isn't the child a part of her body anymore? Because the tyke isn't enveloped? How does this logic apply to other things that can be enveloped?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(bombs, contraband, small animals..)

Here's my post from when we first started the discussion on p576 btw.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Yeah, while I think woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have a baby, once they choose to do so, I don't think it's unreasonable to enforce steps to protect the baby. Just like the state can infringe on your right to protect your kids once they're born.

However, I think this position is only morally defensible if the woman in question had a choice in the first place, aka if abortion and birth control are readily accessible.

Hm, it's all about how 'making a decision' is recorded, and when it takes place.
If it's early as hell, you can bet your ass local authorities & parents will try to strong-arm their pregnant teens into 'deciding' immediately. And that's -fucked-.
And opening any sort of dialogue on -when- this sort of 'physical body sharing' begins is risky as hell because you know republicans are going to push for the most unreasonably early time they can.

But, there are cases where it's a really gray moral issue. Let's see..
The second case, in Iowa, did the mother state she had, in fact, thrown herself down the stairs? Did she intend to do so again? How far along was she?
In the Florida case, if she was 8 months pregnant (and the hospital knew what it was fucking doing) and she tried to leave during an obvious fetal medical emergency, should she be allowed to willfully endanger her fully-developed child?
And the sheriff that kidnapped the woman and took her to the hospital where she forcibly underwent a Cesarian- why did he do this? Was she binging on alcohol & cocaine while 9 months pregnant?

IMO I think a fetus ought to be treated as a human being at a certain point. About the same point where legal abortions stop in fact- about when the kid's brain starts truly functioning, 22-26 weeks into the pregnancy or just before the third trimester.
Here's some stuff:
http://www.svss-uspda.ch/pdf/brain_waves.pdf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Pregnancy_timeline.png

But, just how the law handles the body-sharing and what a mother can or cannot do- delaying a cesarian, water-births, sky-diving- is so incredibly sensitive we might be better served by not addressing it at all at this time.
It would need mature law-makers to work on a case-by-case basis & create a rather complicated legal code- which mothers-to-be are able to understand.
And we just don't have those mature law-makers.

[Leafsnail]

@leafsnail
Keep in mind the hypotheticals are set in late-term pregnancy.
As helgo said in the post before, the baby right outside the womb is no different than it was just before it came out.
So does being birthed magically make the baby a person? Does a C-section have the same magic? What about vat-grown babies?
Can a mother do whatever she pleases with the child right up until 'it' is no longer 'part of her body', (since it hasn't gotten personhood yet and therefore has no protections under the law)?

Does being conceived magically make the embryo a person?  Does hitting 22 weeks magically make the fetus a person?  There's no easy answer to this question.  However, this is all completely and utterly irrelevant to my argument - I do not care when someone "becomes a person".  I care about letting women have control over their own bodies, and making sure that they are not arbitrarily put in danger or violated just because they're pregnant.  Once the child has left the woman's body (by any method, I don't know why you thought any of those examples would throw me for a loop) this bodily autonomy argument no longer applies.

You can endanger yourself, but can you endanger the second person sharing your body? This comes down to when personhood is granted.

It's not granted until birth under all sensible legal systems, so there's your answer.

Ah now we're getting into the same territory as 'injury' during the first trimester- 'ex post facto' law where the parent's actions aren't illegal while they're doing it, and the state can't stop them from doing it, but later on it becomes retro-actively illegal after the baby's been born & the damage has been done.

That's not what ex posto facto means.  If I promise people that I will invest their money wisely then go and spend it all on booze then my previous statement retroactively becomes criminal fraud even though it was a fine thing to do at the time - there's no contradiction here at all.

Why isn't the child a part of her body anymore? Because the tyke isn't enveloped? How does this logic apply to other things that can be enveloped?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(bombs, contraband, small animals..)

This is a really stupid argument, I don't think you can honestly believe it works.  When an embryo or fetus is within the womb it's entirely dependent on the mother's blood supply for survival, just like all the other parts of her body and unlike those silly examples you're giving.  If it's something that is using your heart, your lungs, your blood to survive then it is part of your body (if you're about to respond with some stupid parasitic example: yes, I have no problem with people removing parasites from their bodies).  This is obviously not the case after the baby is born, the umbilical cord can simply be severed and the baby will survive without relying on the mother's organs.

And opening any sort of dialogue on -when- this sort of 'physical body sharing' begins is risky as hell because you know republicans are going to push for the most unreasonably early time they can.

If the law enshrines fetal personhood at any point it's putting pregnant women at risk.  That is fucked and should not happen.

[penguinofhonor]

Let's all chill a bit if we're going to keep discussing this.

[Morrigi]

Vaccinations are different from almost every other health issue due to the fact that refusing to get one puts the whole of society in danger, not just you.

What are you gonna do, start kicking down doors because a few people didn't get their flu vaccines?

[Leafsnail]

No you apply legal sanctions like under the current system

[Sheb]

Well, in case of a pregnant woman, you put the child's future health at risk too.