Does a fetus have more rights than a woman? [W:773]

[Glowpun]

I have spoken. :shock:

 

[AGENT J]

I have spoken. :shock:

currently no

and IMO nor should a ZEF ever "in general"

on the topic of abortion ONE always has to have more rights, one must be picked, there is no way to give them equal rights its impossible. Some people accept this fact some deny it.

For in the vast majority of case i said on womans rights over the ZEFs

it basically works like this for me

0-22weeks womans rights
23-30 case by case
31+ typically ZEF rights but still case by case

now people may disagree with my time line etc but the fact remains ones rights are always being picked over the other.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

No, it does not. Neither under any sane moral system nor under the law.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Moderator's Warning:

Moved to a more appropriate forum for discussion.

 

[Ikari]

I have spoken. :shock:

More? No. The same.

 

[JayDubya]

Currently a Homo sapiens in the fetal stage of life is denied its human rights.

If our natural human rights were protected from the moment we were created, then no, this status would not involve either party having "MORE rights."

Both mother and offspring have a natural right to life. All that is required to affirm this right is to refrain from aggressively trying to kill the other. That's all. That's not more rights. That's equality.

 

[wolfman24]

Alot of people are ignoring the law here and science. The law says that most abortions are legal up until the end of the first trimester and for good reason. According to the NAS, human death is defined as the cessation of higher brain functioning. So the beginning of life would be the opposite. (human).

Therefore prior to the end of the first trimester legally, the mothers rights are paramount and the fetus has none. After that both the fetus and the mother share equal rights at first. The determination of which takes presedence would depend entirely on circumstances. This would have to be determined first by 2 doctors and then probably by the courts.

 

[MaggieD]

currently no

and IMO nor should a ZEF ever "in general"

on the topic of abortion ONE always has to have more rights, one must be picked, there is no way to give them equal rights its impossible. Some people accept this fact some deny it.

For in the vast majority of case i said on womans rights over the ZEFs

it basically works like this for me

0-22weeks womans rights
23-30 case by case
31+ typically ZEF rights but still case by case

now people may disagree with my time line etc but the fact remains ones rights are always being picked over the other.

I like your timeline. It's a little bit more lenient than I would propose, but putting timelines like that in place makes good sense to me. I hope that individual states move in this direction. I think many of them have, but not fast enough.

Being able to destroy a human life should be restricted. Some call it a zef, some a fetus. After a certain length of time, I call it a baby. Sorry, folks, but there it is. I'm ProChoice. With limits.

 

[joko104]

I believe there is a distinction between a homo sapien fetus and a born human. There is a transition from "homo sapien animal's fetus" to being a "human of higher value than animals" at birth. This doesn't have to do with scientific definitions. Science could also justify eugenics, forced sterilizations, and forced euthenasia. It has to do with the more abstract "what separates humans from other animal species" - a philosophical or metaphysical topic.

 

[wolfman24]

I believe there is a distinction between a homo sapien fetus and a born human. There is a transition from "homo sapien animal's fetus" to being a "human of higher value than animals" at birth. This doesn't have to do with scientific definitions. Science could also justify eugenics, forced sterilizations, and forced euthenasia. It has to do with the more abstract "what separates humans from other animal species" - a philosophical or metaphysical topic.

Of course it does. Prove it.

 

[Ikari]

I believe there is a distinction between a homo sapien fetus and a born human. There is a transition from "homo sapien animal's fetus" to being a "human of higher value than animals" at birth. This doesn't have to do with scientific definitions. Science could also justify eugenics, forced sterilizations, and forced euthenasia. It has to do with the more abstract "what separates humans from other animal species" - a philosophical or metaphysical topic.

It has to do with engineering an argument to draw the conclusion you want to draw.

 

[spanky]

Personally from a civil liberties standpoint, I have a problem with dating constitutional rights. So one day a fetus has them and the day before it didn't?

If the fetus is female at what point does it enjoy the same constitutional rights being asserted by it's mother?

 

[joko104]

It has to do with engineering an argument to draw the conclusion you want to draw.

Not for me.

 

[Ikari]

Not for me.

Another engineered argument to draw the conclusion you want to draw

 

[joko104]

Personally from a civil liberties standpoint, I have a problem with dating constitutional rights. So one day a fetus has them and the day before it didn't?

If the fetus is female at what point does it enjoy the same constitutional rights being asserted by it's mother?

I don't think there is any legal prohibition against a fetus aborting itself. In fact, many do called a miscarriage.

 

[spanky]

I don't think there is any legal prohibition against a fetus aborting itself. In fact, many do called a miscarriage.

Well, the argument is no one has the right to force action on a woman or her body she doesn't want. I'm asking when does the female fetus have that same right?

 

[joko104]

Well, the argument is no one has the right to force action on a woman or her body she doesn't want. I'm asking when does the female fetus have that same right?

Oh I dunno, when does a female fetus equally have a right to vote - since you don't want to date rights?

In my opinion, when a female fetus gains rights is when has the ability to make decisions. This is when it is born.

The exception is if the woman plans to bring it into this world and then can not harm it via drugs etc.

 

[joko104]

Another engineered argument to draw the conclusion you want to draw

No, "human rights begin at conception" is an "engineered" slogan to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

 

[Ikari]

No, "human rights begin at conception" is an "engineered" slogan to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

Is it? Or do you just want it to be? Nothing you say here distracts from the fact that you had just made a definition that was convenient for your preexisting beliefs.

 

[spanky]

Oh I dunno, when does a female fetus equally have a right to vote - since you don't want to date rights?

In my opinion, when a female fetus gains rights is when has the ability to make decisions. This is when it is born.

The exception is if the woman plans to bring it into this world and then can not harm it via drugs etc.

Voting rights are conferred on citizens, civil rights are conferred on human beings. A person who has been judged, via due process, unable to make decisions for themselves, say an alzhiemers patient, does not lose other basic civil rights without due process.

What due process does a fetus enjoy?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm pro choice or pro life, I'm saying I continue to be torn by what I consider to be the constitutional issues involved.

 

[Donahue]

In my opinion, when a female fetus gains rights is when has the ability to make decisions. This is when it is born.

What decisions can a newborn child actually make for itself?

The exception is if the woman plans to bring it into this world and then can not harm it via drugs etc.

I don't really see why there needs to be such a distinction.

If you believe a woman can kill her child at any given point then shouldn't she have the right to harm it at any given point?

 

[spanky]

Even the most die hard pro choicer will agree that at some point the fetus/baby enjoys some kind of constitutional protections...I've never seen one that would argue a mother can abort at nine months minus one day. My point is using a gestation date as the basis for conferring constitutional rights is inherently problematic constitutionally.

 

[Muddy Creek]

I have spoken. :shock:

Not in a nation where life is important. A fetus is not a human. It's not a life form. A woman is. And besides, she has the right to abort an embryo. The fetus is a doctor's decision.

 

[Muddy Creek]

Even the most die hard pro choicer will agree that at some point the fetus/baby enjoys some kind of constitutional protections...I've never seen one that would argue a mother can abort at nine months minus one day. My point is using a gestation date as the basis for conferring constitutional rights is inherently problematic.

Not true at all.

And the old "fetus/baby" isn't scientific.

In the womb, it is a zygote, embryo and fetus.

The only person is the woman.

 

[JayDubya]

A fetus is not a human. It's not a life form.

Objectively false. So false as to be laughable on its face.

A new Homo sapiens does not just magically spring forth - it grows from a single cell and it doesn't stop growing or changing until it dies. At every point in between, you are talking about one contiguous organism... and that organism does not change species at any point therein.

I usually say Bio 101, here, but it would be inappropriate - get thee back to middle school-level science classes.

And besides, she has the right to abort an embryo.

Technically, this is false as well. Where is this "right?"