DO PREGNANT WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS? (not an abortion thread)

[FallingPianos]

I wasn't sure where to post this. It's not about abortion, but it's only indirectly related to sex. anyway, I found this article pretty interesting and thought I'd share it.

DO PREGNANT WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS?

April 22, 2004
By: Lynn M. Paltrow, AlterNet.org, April 22, 2004

Imagine a law declaring that upon becoming pregnant a woman loses her right to bodily integrity, life and liberty. Such a law would undoubtedly result in strong opposition across party lines. But in fact such laws are being passed -- though rather than presented as an attack on women's fundamental rights, they are advanced as fetal rights measures such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act recently signed into law by President Bush. Increasingly, fetal rights are being used to undermine the legal status of pregnant women.

In America, both constitutional and common law recognizes the rights of all adults to informed consent and bodily integrity. While individuals may be required to submit to immunizations to protect the public health in general, our courts are not permitted to balance the health interests of one person against those of another. In 1978 Robert McFall, suffering from a rare bone marrow disease sought a court order to force his cousin David Shimp, the only compatible donor, to submit to a transplant. The court declined explaining: "For our law to compel the Defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits." Forcibly restraining someone to make them submit to surgery for the benefit of another would "raise the specter of the swastika and the Inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends."

In the name of fetal rights however, pregnant women are being forcibly restrained. In 1984, for example, a Nigerian woman pregnant and hospitalized in Chicago was forced to have a C-section. She refused the surgery because she planned to return to Nigeria where she would be unable to access C-sections for future births. The hospital obtained a court order and forced her to undergo the procedure. Hospital staff tied her down with leather wrist and ankle cuffs while she screamed for help...

 

[Axl Turwalt]

In the name of fetal rights however, pregnant women are being forcibly restrained. In 1984, for example, a Nigerian woman pregnant and hospitalized in Chicago was forced to have a C-section. She refused the surgery because she planned to return to Nigeria where she would be unable to access C-sections for future births. The hospital obtained a court order and forced her to undergo the procedure. Hospital staff tied her down with leather wrist and ankle cuffs while she screamed for help...

That right there is a prime example of political rape.

Do pregnant women have rights?

From the first quote, obviously not. But you have to consider other factors here such as; Do any of us have rights? We are living in a society that is being spoon-fed falsified hopes and dreams of this so-called 'liberty' that we apparently have. Yet a burgler breaks into my home and I defend my assets, family, dignity, respect and human nature by assaulting him for breaking and entering and trespassing, and I am the one that has to confront the court room with the actual perpetrator walking free. Its like handing the average joe a loaded firearm and stating that he isn't allowed to fire it.

Basically, by the government submissing a pregnant women to forcibal c-section, they are basically telling society that it is okay to rape someone of their dignity and rights as long as you have a piece of government accredited paper that makes it legal to do so. I was actually stunned reading that little essay and kudos to star2589 for bringing this up.

 

[Just Me 2]

That right there is a prime example of political rape.


From the first quote, obviously not. But you have to consider other factors here such as; Do any of us have rights? We are living in a society that is being spoon-fed falsified hopes and dreams of this so-called 'liberty' that we apparently have. Yet a burgler breaks into my home and I defend my assets, family, dignity, respect and human nature by assaulting him for breaking and entering and trespassing, and I am the one that has to confront the court room with the actual perpetrator walking free. Its like handing the average joe a loaded firearm and stating that he isn't allowed to fire it.

Basically, by the government submissing a pregnant women to forcibal c-section, they are basically telling society that it is okay to rape someone of their dignity and rights as long as you have a piece of government accredited paper that makes it legal to do so. I was actually stunned reading that little essay and kudos to star2589 for bringing this up.

In the name of fetal rights however, pregnant women are being forcibly restrained. In 1984, for example, a Nigerian woman pregnant and hospitalized in Chicago was forced to have a C-section. She refused the surgery because she planned to return to Nigeria where she would be unable to access C-sections for future births. The hospital obtained a court order and forced her to undergo the procedure. Hospital staff tied her down with leather wrist and ankle cuffs while she screamed for help...

I'd like to know the specifics of the case. Perhaps the baby was endanger and needed to be taken this way. You can't post a portion of something with out providing a link to where you got it and allowing others to read the FULL details.

I'd also like some CREDITABLE links not blogs to your claims that the government is forcing woman to have c-sections.

 

[FallingPianos]

I'd like to know the specifics of the case. Perhaps the baby was endanger and needed to be taken this way. You can't post a portion of something with out providing a link to where you got it and allowing others to read the FULL details.

I'd also like some CREDITABLE links not blogs to your claims that the government is forcing woman to have c-sections.

the title is a link. there are more examples in the complete article.

 

[Jerry]

Yes, pregnant women have rights, they just stop where another "person”s rights begin, and the right to life trumps "bodily integrity" per. RvW section 9a.

That's why there's such a fuss being made over establishing "personhood" prenataly, which the Unborn Victims of Violence Act helps.

 

[talloulou]

In Washington, DC, doctors sought a court order to force Ayesha Madyun to have a C-section. The doctors asserted that the fetus faced a 50-75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. The court, apparently viewing the pregnant woman as having no more rights than a slab of meat, said, "[a]ll that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was put simply, a doctor's scalpel." With that, the court granted the order and the scalpel sliced through Ms. Madyun's flesh, the muscles of her abdominal wall, and her uterus. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.

What type of infection? If it's HIV then I fully support the hospitals decision. If she has HIV she probably shouldn't be having more kids anyway and it's completely rational to do everything possible to prevent a child from getting HIV. There are other STD's too that cause problems such as blindness in the child during vaginal birth. In this particular case the hospital did the right thing.

Most of this article though is too vague and doesn't give enough details. I've worked in enough hospitals to know that most drs. are in the business of putting the pregnant woman's genuine well being above the unborn she carries. The opposite of that is quite rare and usually it's drs. trying to convince women with cancer to abort their babies.

I think the answer is that pregnant women do have rights but at a certain point the fetus has rights too. When a dr. is treating a pregnant woman carrying a viable fetus he has two patients not one and anyone who can't see that is being intellectually dishonest.

There is no reason to risk a major infection such as HIV or the one that causes blindness (I forget at the moment) in regards to a viable fetus when a c-section can drastically lower the risk.

 

[Jerry]

In Washington, DC, doctors sought a court order to force Ayesha Madyun to have a C-section. The doctors asserted that the fetus faced a 50-75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. The court, apparently viewing the pregnant woman as having no more rights than a slab of meat, said, "[a]ll that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was put simply, a doctor's scalpel." With that, the court granted the order and the scalpel sliced through Ms. Madyun's flesh, the muscles of her abdominal wall, and her uterus. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.

I thought that abortion was to remain an issue between a woman and her doctor, not the woman all by herself.

We're not talking about some mere "clump of cells", but a "viable" fetus with a functioning neural cortex attached to a functioning thalamus, ie; what even all but the most liberal PCers agree qualifies as a "person".

I may be just a mere carpenter and know nothing beyond emergency first response about modern medicine, but from my layman's perspective a 50-75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically justifies a doctor in obtaining a court order to perform the delivery in a manner which safe guards the fetus's health to the best of the doctor's professional medical judgment.

The quoted article is a propaganda piece supporting a minority liberal feminist opinion, nothing more.