Two heads. One body. The twins get pregnant. One of them wants an abortion, the other doesn't. What should be done? (before any of you say this is completely ridiculous and can't happen you might want to see this)
It's completely ridiculous....and really has, as usual, nothing to do with women's right to have an abortion.....
I believe that their family and friends should set up a film production company or cooperative or kibbutz...... the twnis should be hired as actors playing the role of themselves........ the revenue from the film series that they get going...... if any.... should be invested in expenses for the baby.......... which might tempt the twin who wants the abortion to change her mind.
But during a normal pregnancy there are two heads, and, if we are to believe the opinion of many pro-choicers out there, one body. The conjoined twin scenario can be seen as an allegory of a regular pregnancy, if one is willing to draw a connection and see the similarities. There are many possible variations of this woman's choice hypothetical. For example, the woman could be in a coma and have no surviving family members. The hospital staff might have no idea how she got pregnant, or exactly when, and may not have found out about the pregnancy until it was already well underway. Or it could be a mentally-handicapped 17-year-old who may not be able to fully comprehend what a pregnancy means. What happens when 'the woman's choice' isn't so simple and straightforward? Do other values (apart from her choice) start coming into play?
In the case of the twins, NO one should be forced to use their body to sustain the life of another, the fetus in this case. So the twin who didn't want the pregnancy should rule. In the case of the woman in a coma obviously she did NOT consent to being pregnant and I would expect her caregivers would protect her from the added stress of gestation. I'm sure the hospital would have an ethics committee decide especially if the woman has NO guardian or legal representative. AND a patient in a coma is monitored , they would know if she was pregnant. A mentally handicapped 17 year old has a loving caregiver/guardian , right? That's what all the Anti-Choice people say. A guardian who would explain the situation and offer solutions and depending on the level of awareness let the girl choose. NONE of that has anything to do with the right of women to have an abortion.......
Pro-choicers believe if there's two people sharing the same body and only one of them is capable of making a decision, then only the one capable of making the decision should get the choice. Well, what about in the case of conjoined twins when one of the twins got whacked her over the head unconscious, or one of the heads are in a coma? Is it OK for one of the twins to off the other? (Maybe have her head severed, so the other twin can take over the body all to herself) Of course not. And if it doesn't work for conjoined twins, what makes you think it works for pregnancy?
Interesting. So you think being forced to gestate a pregnancy is far worse than a woman losing a pregnancy she wanted to keep. Very revealing about your position. What if one of the twins at first decided to let the pregnancy proceed only to decide later to get an abortion so she could spite her twin, knowing it would cause her to grieve?
Like any other medical procedure, they'd have to both consent to an abortion before it could be performed so ultimately, it would be down to them to make the final decision like any other pregnant woman would. Clearly their situation would add a unique element to that process but it wouldn't really change it in any other way. Sorry, but usually the right answer is the boring answer.
But, if they are both required to consent for an outside party to be allowed to perform the abortion, that could force them into an UNSAFE abortion. (or so that's what pro-choicers tell us) I suppose there might be ways of individually punishing just one of the twins if one of them somehow managed to down an abortion pill without the other one knowing about it. Maybe chinese water torture on her head.
I couldn't care less what so called "pro-choicers" or so-called "pro-lifers" say (or you think they say). I was just giving the factually correct answer but I'd prefer you didn't use my answer as a tool in your partisan political games.
Look, all I'm really getting at in this thread is that if you wouldn't do something to your conjoined twin, maybe that thing shouldn't be done to your fetus either. a sort of Golden Rule: 'Do unto thy fetus as you would have done unto thy conjoined twin'
Then you've outdone yourself in silliness. ...and STILL can't tell the difference between a person with rights and a fetus.....unbelievable....
Maybe, but this still detracts from the argument the woman should choose if it is a person. (An argument you yourself have tried to make, from what I remember) Just because a thread doesn't address all aspects of an opponent's argument all at once doesn't mean it's a complete fail. I'm just patching a hole.
Well it's a rather ridiculous situation... and probably you deserve an answer like she should turn the other cheek... no the other one. However I'll reply seriously.... both must agree to an abortion before having one, they share a body equal rights...I doubt they'd have that problem though, they're too in sync.
Because without proper care a baby or young child will die... there are people out there who do not care for their children, (and I mean that both emotionally and literally) therefore for me abortion is not about whether the baby has rights or not but about the more practical issue such as can the parent actually look after the child. Some children suffer terribly. fyi abortion is not something I would ever personally consider, not even under rape circumstances
What? I never said that. I don't even know what you mean...."""the woman should choose if it is a person."" If you are talking about the fetus, no, the woman does NOT get to decide if it is a person....the law says it isn't a person until birth. ...no hole to patch.....the twin who doesn't want her body harmed by pregnancy wins.[/QUOTE]
Not sure who you’re responding to but my answer meets that principle. No competent adult can be submitted to any medical procedure they don’t consent to. If someone isn’t competent (due to age, mental ability or clinical state), their next of kin can consent for them (within appropriate legal structures). If that wasn’t the case, parents would never be able to consent to, or significantly refuse, medical treatment for their young children. Abortion in a unique example but ultimately requires consent of the pregnant woman (or in your hypothetical, women) both on her own behalf and as the next of kin to the foetus.
So what you're trying to say is the difference between a fetus and a conjoined twin is that one of them is a competent adult and the other isn't. But what about if a 4-year old was conjoined to an 18 year old (very hypothetical, I know). You wouldn't say the adult should have corporeal jurisdiction then. So it's obvious your argument still fails. (if it helps you at all to imagine this, maybe it's 300 years in the future and there was a horrendous transporter accident while they were both being beamed to the surface of a planet)
And then Captain America appeared with other super heroes to save the planet and the earth turned purple while slimey green ribbons swirled around their heads and mountains began to dance ...and elephants danced on the lawn .....and multi-colored mushrooms cooked dinner for everyone and Alice married the Cheshire Cat....
I'm just pointing out that if the underlying logic can't hold under any type of situation conceivable, then it's very likely something in your logic is inherently flawed. We have a scenario, you define what the input variables are in that scenario and why they lead to the outcome you claim. If I can describe a different scenario, with the same input variables you selected, but we end up getting a different outcome, then it's very obvious something in your argument was wrong. That's why using unrealistic scenarios is still a valid argument. It's a tool, a way of letting us step back and see things in a different light. By completely changing the background we can focus in on an argument someone is making, and only the particulars of the argument, without being prejudiced by the background (which is supposedly not part of the argument). In scientific theory they do this too, it's called a thought experiment.
One of the many differences, yes. No, the principle remains the same. You need consent from both, but consent for minors is given (or refused) by their parents or guardians and logically that would extend to foetus.
