A mother can't consent to having her toddler euthanized though (except possibly if they're suffering from a terminal disease and in pain, but that's only in some states). Look, I'm not entirely in complete opposition to euthanasia—whether that's on a fetus or an infant—but there better be some very compelling reason for it, like severe abnormality that will make quality of life very difficult. If we're going to perform a medical procedure on a child (especially one who can not provide their consent) it better be done out of what's in their own best interests. And by "their" I mean the child, of course. Not the parents, not the mother. And no, the fact the child may likely grow up in poverty doesn't make it a mercy killing (as some pro-choicers here would proffer). Would you do that to a 4 year old?
We’re not discussing what (you believe) “pro-choicers” say, we’re discussing what you and I say. I think you’re unduly conflating the question of consent and the question of the legitimacy of the procedure entirely. I think they’re largely separate. I don’t believe abortion should be available at any point in pregnancy for any reason, though I don’t pretend to know how and where was should draw the lines. I’m not sure that really matters in the context of your OP question though. If abortion were illegal, it wouldn’t matter which of your pregnant conjoined twins consented or not, an abortion wouldn’t be allowed regardless. Once we’re talking about consent though, we must be talking about a procedure that has been deemed legal in the specified circumstances by definition. In those circumstances, constant of the people directly involved is all that matters to answer your question. The issues and complications of medical consent are much wider than just abortion so general answers are well established in most circumstances. It’s those established principles I based my answer to your question on. We could consider a different hypothetical. Much progress is being made in the field of foetal surgery, where a foetus can be operated on while still in the womb and it’s perfectly conceivable that in the near future, such surgery could be lifesaving. The question would be, if it was medically clear that a foetus will die unless some foetal surgery is performed, would the pregnant women have the right to refuse consent, essentially condemning the foetus to death? I know the legal answer, I’m not sure what the right one is. Maybe there isn't always a right answer at all?
Several states in the U.S. have feticide laws, where you can be charged for killing a fetus if you didn't have the consent of the mother. It would be interesting to speculate whether one of the twins could potentially be charged with feticide if she didn't have the consent of the other twin. Even if abortion was already illegal, it's possible the ones performing the abortion could still face additional criminal charges if they didn't have the consent of the other twin. That is very interesting. If one says consent to any medical procedure, such as an abortion, requires the consent of both of them, then that is also a strong argument towards requiring the consent of both to perform an intervention to save the life of the fetus. Of course the one does not necessarily automatically follow the other, but there's certainly a close similarity between the two. Someone could argue, however, that one woman being forced to lose her unborn child is a worse thing than the other woman having her bodily sovereignty intrusively violated (they are likely to cut into her belly). I don't think I'd make that argument, but it is possible to argue.
If abortion is banned making women nothing more than cattle these silly arguments wouldn't be necessary.... If abortion is banned women have just lost the right to their own bodies so there is no problem. Just get a bunch of senile old white men to judge them on their sex life, their looks, whether the sex was consensual or not (and women MUST be punished for having consensual sex as ALL Anti-Choicers claim)...and let them decide what twin gets what...they'll be happy making one woman of the pair miserable which will make them happy.. ....and isn't it all about making those who will never have to be pregnant happy? Isn't it all about making women miserable so the Moralisticassface do-gooders can feel all warm and fuzzy ?
If you want to look at it from that perspective, is it really entirely consensual? The fetus never consented to being conceived and aborted. What would you suggest to resolve the dilemma? A bioethics panel composed entirely of women?
I was referring to consensual SEX....are you saying the fetus consents to sex? That would be an odd thing to say even for you. I would suggest nosy busy bodies to butt out, it's up to the twins to decide what to do...if they can't then they'll have to sue each other... """" Here the whole post, ( I dislike dishonest cherry picking): If abortion is banned making women nothing more than cattle these silly arguments wouldn't be necessary.... If abortion is banned women have just lost the right to their own bodies so there is no problem. Just get a bunch of senile old white men to judge them on their sex life, their looks, whether the sex was consensual or not (and women MUST be punished for having consensual sex as ALL Anti-Choicers claim)...and let them decide what twin gets what...they'll be happy making one woman of the pair miserable which will make them happy.. ....and isn't it all about making those who will never have to be pregnant happy? Isn't it all about making women miserable so the Moralisticassface do-gooders can feel all warm and fuzzy ?"""""
The fetus also has 2 heads and will require a lifetime of care. The twin that wanted an abortion agrees to carry full term as long as someone signs a contract to care for the child for the rest of their life. Will you sign the contract and save the baby's life?
That's not so different from the father being on the hook for child support, should the fetus turn out to be abnormal and the woman decides not to abort. (Maybe the bigger question here is can we force the woman to abort when the fetus will require a lifetime of care and she's not able, or willing to sign a contract agreeing to provide for it?)
You sure like the idea of FORCING women to do something. If she can't provide for the kid WTF good would it do to have her sign a contract...WTF are you thinking ? If the kid is HERS she has an obligation to provide for it....parents do not sigh contracts agreeing to provide for their kids...if they can't there are legal alternatives.. I think your multiple fantasies to punish and control women has you really on a trip this time...
You sure like the idea of FORCING women to do something. If she can't provide for the kid WTF good would it do to have her sign a contract...WTF are you thinking ? If the kid is HERS she has an obligation to provide for it....parents do not sigh contracts agreeing to provide for their kids...if they can't there are legal alternatives.. I think your multiple fantasies to punish and control women has you really on a trip this time... Every parent by law has an obligation to their kids unless they give them up for adoption. I see cherry picking posts around those INCONVENIENT comments and questions that show you to be wrong and confused is still your style....
In this example, your willingness to adopt saves the child's life, and your refusal means she gets an abortion. Answer the question.
My obligation to adopt isn't the same as the woman's obligation to give life, since she was the one* who brought that life into existence. ( * or one of the two parties involved ) Now, if the woman strew herself out on crack, that child's going to be a difficult sell on the adoption market. (again, her fault) Otherwise don't tell me all these babies are not wanted. Wasn't the U.S. trafficking in babies from Guatemala not too long ago? https://www.insightcrime.org/news/b...egal-adoption-on-the-rise-again-in-guatemala/ If someone's offering to take the baby, the woman should not abort.
I think it's so cute how young 'uns think they decide what is an "obligation" and what isn't....and usually think they have the least obligation ... Women have NO obligation to do anything, they have no obligation to use birth control, no obligation to give birth, no obligation to populate the earth, no obligation to the guy who got them pregnant , no obligation to give Mom and Dad a grandkid, ...and certainly NO obligation to please those who wish to take away their rights...
I can understand your position of "She should not abort" and you are entitled to that opinion. Perhaps people are pre-ordering newborns. It seems that once they can walk and talk, their resale value drops significantly and we are left with thousands of unwanted children. Why is it that these precious lives fall off your concern radar once they can form a sentence?
