True but who contacts the lawyer to defend the child? The parents I'd think. If the mother chooses not to, then it's a moot point.
Well you have but you think your opinion is law and fact and no one has convinced you otherwise... But you never proved how or why or showed who or what gave them rights or how a fetuses rights interfere with the rights of the woman it's in.... But you believe women MUST be abused by the fetus because they have NO rights or fetuses have superior rights to everyone else........ how backwards!!! Wouldn't that apply to everyone? Afterall , fat sickly people cost everyone money so let's have a Big Government Organization with people who will come to your house and tell YOU how to live.....is that OK with you?
Right but how many pregnant mothers are arrested and are appointed a lawyer to defend the fetus? I've never heard of a fetus committing a crime nor a lawyer being appointed unless its a test of roe v. wade and if so, with what frequency does it occur?
Oh I dont think it ever occurs. My point is that the life of the fetus will be defended by the state post viability. But I dont think the fetus actually gets a lawyer though in effect we are just talking semantics
A fetus has a right not to be abused throughout the pregnancy. If a woman knows she is pregnant and is an alcoholic who refuses to seek help that was offered for her addiction and the child is born with fetal alcohol syndrome she has acted unethically. It may not rise to the level of being unlawful but the woman has denied the fetus what it was morally entitled to which is not to be abused.
So who gets to define that in this context? So are you OK with your right to life being contingent on the assent of others?
Abuse, torture and life taken with sufficient reason are all subjective terms decided by current social norms. The woman has more rights than the fetus at every stage of development until birth.
So the way you figure it, Jews in Nazi Germany were herded into gas chambers with sufficient reason, seeing that was consistent with the social norms current at the time. Right? Because social norms say so?
What? The world was appalled by Nazi behavior. We still have the death penalty for murder and that is seen as sufficient reason to kill. That I hope will change but that is another issue. It used to be okay for a child to be beaten with a belt, now it's abuse. It was lawful for a husband to beat and rape his wife at one time. Social norms change. The woman has more rights than the fetus because the woman has a right to control what happens to her body. The fetus is using her body to develop and is dependent on her wishes.
Where do you draw the line? I know one woman who smoked during her pregnancy because it would ensure a smaller baby and she did not want to ‘push out a big kid” (yeah some mothers....) Lack of correct vitamin intake can have devastating effects on the foetus - do we mandate vitamin B for all pregnant women? How about overweight women at risk of diabetes - what do we do about them?
Your ethical sense is subjective. Time, place, knowledge and circumstance come into play. Wouldn't you say the smoking woman is acting in an immoral way if she is trying to make a small baby? Would you say the woman on a vitamin deficient diet because she is poor or doesn't know what a proper diet is is acting unethically? Would you say a woman with a genetic disease should not become pregnant? Where do you draw the line?
This is exactly my point. There is a difference between ethical, moral and legal. We might consider some of the above unethical or immoral but at present they are not illegal - yet. There are states in America that have charged women who have had miscarriages with murder https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/25/miscarriage-murder-roevwade-personhood
I'd draw the line at interfering in their lives because I'm not a sick control freak who thinks they rule the earth... . WHO are YOU to judge whether a poor women who can't afford healthy food is "ethical" or not ??? Do you think it matters one tiny bit what you think of her? If you want to buy and deliver healthy foods to pregnant women who can't afford it then why aren't you doing that so you can save their BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIES!!!?????
As I wrote earlier it is based on social norms. The degree of perceived immorality may push society to make it illegal. In Saudi Arabia you can rape your wife and she may feel she deserves it. If a Saudi did it here he could be put in jail. A Saudi can blaspheme in the US and we shrug and say he has an opinion. If he did that in Saudi Arabia he could get his head cut off.
Let's see women's right to their own bodies destroyed by "perceived immorality"......I really don't think Americans will go for that....
Granting this dubious premise arguendo, had Hitler prevailed in WW2, carrying out his genocidal designs would have been perfectly moral. Right? Morality doesn't. Non sequitur... ...in every case where that dependency was created by an act she consented to.
I do not think the world would agree there was sufficient reason to kill innocents no matter what the powers that be said. Morality is subjective. The Bible is full of righteous genocide. The non sequitur is believing a fetus has a right to use a woman's body against her will no matter how the egg got fertilized.
That no one would make an explicit affirmation to that effect is of no moment, as innocence has been under siege since the dawn of mankind. Then might makes right. Enjoy. Yes, commanded, if we take the Bible at face value, by the Author of objective morality, Who is very much able to ensure that no innocents die in such enterprises; so your point is...? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however nonsensical.
Does the woman have the right to abuse the fetus by drinking alcohol if she's planning on getting an abortion? How about if she drinks lots of alcohol and then starts to change her mind about the abortion the next day? Could there be a situation where she then becomes (ethically) obligated to have to get an abortion, after the abuse she inflicted?
