If you are dead you have no rights This has happened and usually it is left to the family because the outcome is usually bleak Honestly I feel like I am re enacting the bloody dead parrot scene It is not about rights in these cases. It is only and always what is medically possible tempered by ethical considerations. Not uncommonly the family decide against trying to keep the woman and foetus alive because of the high probability that the foetus will be brain damaged
So you believe a human being relying on the body of someone else, even if this other person is brain-dead, is not entitled to rights, whereas if that human being was relying on a machine it would have rights. What makes you view the body of a brain dead woman (no one is there) as different from a machine in this case?
Not every pro-lifer would agree with that, but okay... The question is, what if the fetus was, say, just a few weeks before viability? So if it's right at 24 weeks, you wouldn't keep the woman alive a little longer to increase the fetus's odds of survival? Not to mention greatly reducing the chance of lifelong disability from being taken out of the womb so early. Oh, so family wishes have more rights than a fetus, you believe. What this proves is that abortion isn't just all about the rights of a person to their own body. Yeah, what if the woman was known to be an ardent pro-lifer, but her only surviving family member wants to pull the plug on the fetus?
I thought that the fetal rights were reduced only because of the woman's rights, not true? It's obvious you believe fetal rights are inferior to the rights of other humans, women's rights or not.
Why am I not surprised that you compare a woman to a machine... For the TEN THOUSANDTH time...a fetus has NO rights.
Maybe the woman is "only restin' " I would say the woman's rights are transferred to the family and their decisions should ethically motivated and tempered by what is medically possible. And, here we go again, why must there be ethical considerations at all in regards to the fetus? Because the fetus is morally entitled to be considered which is the definition of a right.
I see no problem in keeping the woman alive so the fetus reaches viability but the family has more rights. It would be a cost/benefit analysis. It would be assumed she wanted to go to term if she was that far along. A family member disregarding the woman's wishes would be acting unethically. Yes a fetus has increasing rights, from none at the fertilized egg to birth when it has full human rights.
The non lawyers, the jack of all trades all crack me up. Do not follow any advice given by the non lawyers posting. Seek proof the person posting is actually a lawyer.
NO, it doesn't...a fetus has no rights until birth. Before that it has PROTECTIONS (after viability).
FoxHastings: """NO, it doesn't...a fetus has no rights until birth. Before that it has PROTECTIONS (after viability).""" Here's another question you'll ignore. WHERE did I say that I believe a fetus should have protections after viability ? Answer ( because you won't answer): I didn't say that...
Ok, so your pyramid of rights would look like this: human being outside of the womb dogs & parrots human being inside the womb post-viability human being inside the womb pre-viability dog inside the womb How about parrots in an egg not yet born?
Pretty much. Viability is irrelevent. Dogs in the womb, the fetus, and the parrot in the eggs are on the same level.
So you believe a dog in the womb is pretty much on the same level as a human being in the womb, in terms of rights. And you believe that a parrot in an egg is on the same level as a dog inside a female a dog? Could you explain to me why you believe a little chickling parrot inside an egg is worth less than a parrot that's already broken out of its shell?
What if that's just a convenient justification for taking away their rights? I thought you stated you believed a dog or parrot did have rights:
