NationStates Jolt Archive

I asked this in the abortion thread, just to be a devil's advocate, but I decided it needed its own thread.

Should the fetus have a right to keep the mother from abusing drugs or alcohol while she is pregnant?

Hmm...this is a poser. I know that this is going to start a firestorm, but shouldn't the fetus have the right to not get killed before it gets the right to not get poisoned?

I asked this in the abortion thread, just to be a devil's advocate, but I decided it needed its own thread.
Currently, a fetus has no rights.

If it were to have any, they certainly couldn't trump the woman's. A human being always has full control over his/her body. There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that should give any person or government the right to deny a human the full control over his/her body. Anything else is enslavement, pure and simple.

That being said, if a woman is stupid enough to abuse drugs or alcohol during pregnancy, she is a twit and certainly is not fit to be a mother. Should the fetus come to term(and hoping it would be delivered in relative health despite the mother's abuse) it should be taken into custody by the appropriate authorities and be given into adoption.

Hmm...this is a poser. I know that this is going to start a firestorm, but shouldn't the fetus have the right to not get killed before it gets the right to not get poisoned?

There are other threads.

Currently, a fetus has no rights.

If it were to have any, they certainly couldn't trump the woman's. A human being always has full control over his/her body. There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that should give any person or government the right to deny a human the full control over his/her body. Anything else is enslavement, pure and simple.

There are many times when we are not allowed to intake whatever substance we want in order to protect the rights of others.

We cannot drink while we drive, we cannot smoke in public buildings.

That being said, if a woman is stupid enough to abuse drugs or alcohol during pregnancy, she is a twit and certainly is not fit to be a mother. Should the fetus come to term(and hoping it would be delivered in relative health despite the mother's abuse) it should be taken into custody by the appropriate authorities and be given into adoption.

It seems to me that any reprecussions visited upon the mother would represent protection of the rights of a developing fetus.

I agree with Skaladora. Well said.

Currently, a fetus has no rights.

If it were to have any, they certainly couldn't trump the woman's. A human being always has full control over his/her body. There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that should give any person or government the right to deny a human the full control over his/her body. Anything else is enslavement, pure and simple.

That being said, if a woman is stupid enough to abuse drugs or alcohol during pregnancy, she is a twit and certainly is not fit to be a mother. Should the fetus come to term(and hoping it would be delivered in relative health despite the mother's abuse) it should be taken into custody by the appropriate authorities and be given into adoption.

So you're against a government having control over a person's body but you're all for forced abduction of a persons child?

That's an interesting question. I would say that as long as abortion is kept legal (which it should be) and the mother chooses to carry the child to term, the answer is unquestionably that it is a crime, because it is condemning a living human being (unlike a fetus) to great suffering, which is a crime (after all, if I placed a land mine somewhere in the middle of the street before a person was born and it blew their leg off, I would still be guilty of maiming them, whether or not they had been alive before). If she chooses to have it aborted, the answer is no. If abortion is illegal, then the answer is much more complicated. In that case, the mother is basically being enslaved to carry the fetus to term. If that is the case, then her lack of choices regarding the situation (except to not take the drug in question) changes everything.

Just one more reason to keep abortion legal.

So you're against a government having control over a person's body but you're all for forced abduction of a persons child?

If someone has demonstrated themselves to be unable to raise a real living child (unlike a fetus) by showing neglect to it's wellbeing, and the government can proove that to a court with evidence, then they have lost their right to care for the child. You do not own your children. They are people (once again, unlike fetuses) and have rights of their own.

A fetus, on the other hand is none of the above, and so it has no rights for the government to protect.

Should the fetus have a right to keep the mother from abusing drugs or alcohol while she is pregnant?
No, it should not. Anything else is inconsistent.

No, it should not. Anything else is inconsistent.

Even considering that the harm done to it will continue to be harm when it has been born and is a living human being?

So you're against a government having control over a person's body but you're all for forced abduction of a persons child?
I said I agree with him, so I'll justify this from my point of view.

FIRST, to me, this only applies to legal substances. In the US, heroin, for instance, is illegal. So a pregnant junkie should be stopped by the law, just the same way a non-pregnant junkie would be. But there are other addictions, such as smoking or alchohol that might harm a pregnancy but are not illegal substances. You can't arrest a woman or force her into rehab just because she is pregnant.

A woman who wants to be pregnant will do what she has to in order to have a successful pregnancy and healthy baby. If she's an addict, she will seek help for that. A just society should make sure she gets it. But even if she doesn't, the state can't stop her from doing something that's legal.

In the case of whether she deserves to have her child taken from her, it should be decided on a case by case basis. Did she drink so much that she could have harmed her fetus, and did she know this risk, and was help to quit drinking offered to her, and did she keep on drinking in spite of all that? That may well be negligence and, possibly, an addiction so out of control that she could legally be declared an unfit parent. If she is legally declared an unfit parent, then the state must take custody of the baby away from her.

However, if she just drank half a beer a couple of times during the last half of her pregnancy, that does not pose a risk to the fetus, and anyone who claimed she was unfit or irresponsible would be overstepping their bounds.

Third, if the fetus does not have ownership rights over the woman, neither does the woman have ownership rights over her baby as long as it is not a part of her body, i.e. inside her. If a court determines she is unfit for any reason, it must take custody away from her.

That's the way I see it.

Even considering that the harm done to it will continue to be harm when it has been born and is a living human being?
It's not a living being until it leaves the womb--up to that point, it is only potential life.

That being said, if a woman is stupid enough to abuse drugs or alcohol during pregnancy, she is a twit and certainly is not fit to be a mother. Should the fetus come to term(and hoping it would be delivered in relative health despite the mother's abuse) it should be taken into custody by the appropriate authorities and be given into adoption.

I am also guessing that mandatory abortion is out of the question.

I could never support mandatory abortion, but it is very similar to forcing a woman to give up her newborn child.

It's not a living being until it leaves the womb--up to that point, it is only potential life.

I agree with that.

But when the child is born and the harm continues after the birth, what then? Does it not count because the child wasn't yet alive when the harm was caused? That seems wrong, because a living being was still harmed, even if they were not yet alive until after the birth.

There's another way to approach this, too:

The OP asks if the fetus has a right to something. Of course, fetuses do not have rights, legally, so no, it does not, but should it be granted such a right? (I don't think so, but that's not where I'm going with this.)

Other people ask, if the state doesn't have the right to enforce behavior, should it have the right to take away a person's baby because of bad behavior. That's a good question. I outlined some circumstances under which I think it might have such a right, i.e. when behavior during pregnancy is a reliable indicator of a problem that will persist after birth too.

But let's consider what often does happen in reality: A woman drinks and smokes like mad all through her pregnancy, gives birth, immediately reaches for a beer and a cigarette, and takes that baby home to be raised by a mother who drinks and smokes like mad.

Is it proper to assume that such a woman is an unfit parent? Should the state, acting on advice/requests from her doctor or family, have the right to investigate a family situation to see if it is abusive or dangerous to a child based on behavior during the woman's pregnancy? I have suggested that, under some circumstances, it might be proper. But maybe I'm wrong.

It's not a living being until it leaves the womb--up to that point, it is only potential life.

That is the way I feel about it.

I liked the question because it places people in a difficult situation. It is a central point of the abortion argument that the fetus is a potential person, and not a real person, and as such does not possess rights. But then again it is extremely difficult to not support punishment to someone who knowingly causes the birth of a malformed child.

OK, so here is a question to people who make a big deal about the difference between a fetus and a live human being. With gains in medical science we are able to sustain life in a fetus that is born weeks premature, and I am inclined to believe that our ability to sustain this "premature" life will only increase with the passage of time. So would you consider it still the mother's choice if the fetus was in the third trimester, and almost ready to come out of the womb, or if it is in the womb does it not make a difference? Does the government have the right to protect the fetus if it has the possibility to live outside the womb, though there is no medical justification other than to protect it from harm by the mother? I understand that there are laws against late-stage abortions, but as far as I know there are no such laws against late-stage child endangerment. To restate my question: Would there be a date in the pregnancy when the fetus changes into a living being (due to the fact that its life can be maintained with modern medicine), or is it only when the fetus has been delivered that it crosses over to the living realm?

I agree with that.

But when the child is born and the harm continues after the birth, what then? Does it not count because the child wasn't yet alive when the harm was caused? That seems wrong, because a living being was still harmed, even if they were not yet alive until after the birth.

It depends on what you consider harm. The harm occurs during development, and it is entirely possible that the child could have no further harm visited upon them after birth.

In a sense, that second part assumes that a potential person=a real person.

And the original thought that brought this up in the first place was the idea that a fetus cannot have rights.

I say that a fetus cannot have a right to life because it is pointless, there is no value nor any purpose to it. However, there is value to be had in this right.

So why can't a fetus have rights?

I agree with that.

But when the child is born and the harm continues after the birth, what then? Does it not count because the child wasn't yet alive when the harm was caused? That seems wrong, because a living being was still harmed, even if they were not yet alive until after the birth.
Admittedly, it seems rather cold-blooded to suggest that, but in the end, this really is an issue of autonomy, at least until we get to a point where we can incubate fetuses outside the female body.

There's another way to approach this, too:

The OP asks if the fetus has a right to something. Of course, fetuses do not have rights, legally, so no, it does not, but should it be granted such a right? (I don't think so, but that's not where I'm going with this.)

Other people ask, if the state doesn't have the right to enforce behavior, should it have the right to take away a person's baby because of bad behavior. That's a good question. I outlined some circumstances under which I think it might have such a right, i.e. when behavior during pregnancy is a reliable indicator of a problem that will persist after birth too.

But let's consider what often does happen in reality: A woman drinks and smokes like mad all through her pregnancy, gives birth, immediately reaches for a beer and a cigarette, and takes that baby home to be raised by a mother who drinks and smokes like mad.

Is it proper to assume that such a woman is an unfit parent? Should the state, acting on advice/requests from her doctor or family, have the right to investigate a family situation to see if it is abusive or dangerous to a child based on behavior during the woman's pregnancy? I have suggested that, under some circumstances, it might be proper. But maybe I'm wrong.
First, if the woman drinks like crazy, she is more than likely an unfit parent. I have yet to see a parent who drinks heavily and can be considered responsible and fit for their parenting responsibilities.
Second, the baby will probably have mental, or physical retardation as a result of both the smoking and drinking, so it will need extra care (This is of course assuming that it doesn't die in the womb from excessive damage during the pregnancy). I don't see how the person who put them in that condition can be reasonably expected by anyone to be able to care for them adequetly.

Even considering that the harm done to it will continue to be harm when it has been born and is a living human being?

This is a very slippery slope. If we start considering the future harm that can be unintentionally inflicted on a future human by our actions then we simply can not act. We are not capable of predicting accurately all the consequences that will derive from any given action. There is also a principle in law that ignorance cannot be a defence. Thus acting in a way that we know will potentially but not necessarily harm a future human is no different from acting in a way in which we are ignorant of the future harm that this will cause.

It would then be necessary to show that our avoidable action necessarily led to the harm of this future human and that this was intentional on our part. i.e. some mother who did not use heroin before getting pregnant takes up its use, explaining to her dealer that she wants to extract revenge on that bastard who knocked her up by presenting him with an addicted baby to deal with (Sick woman). She would be morally wrong and I hope legally as well.

It may be possible that one could manage some kind of negligence case, but negligence is normally due to the non performance of some action, rather than the performance.

It depends on what you consider harm. The harm occurs during development, and it is entirely possible that the child could have no further harm visited upon them after birth.

In a sense, that second part assumes that a potential person=a real person.

Is suffering through your whole life blind, deformed, mentally retarded, or handicapped not harm? I understand that the question is subtle. But if one completely ignores the fetus and looks just at the effects upon the living person, there is still harm present.

But really none of you have any say about any of this do you? None of you can effect anything unless a congressperson thinks that this deserves attention. So shut the fuck up about pointless arguements that lead to no where. Besides regardless if they made that a law or not there would be little way to enforce such a law and would only be asking for more disobedience.

But really none of you have any say about any of this do you? None of you can effect anything unless a congressperson thinks that this deserves attention. So shut the fuck up about pointless arguements that lead to no where. Besides regardless if they made that a law or not there would be little way to enforce such a law and would only be asking for more disobedience.
Who knows? The US has never tried enforcing an anti-abortion law on the national level before. I don't know about other countries around the world.

This is a very slippery slope. If we start considering the future harm that can be unintentionally inflicted on a future human by our actions then we simply can not act. We are not capable of predicting accurately all the consequences that will derive from any given action. There is also a principle in law that ignorance cannot be a defence. Thus acting in a way that we know will potentially but not necessarily harm a future human is no different from acting in a way in which we are ignorant of the future harm that this will cause.

It would then be necessary to show that our avoidable action necessarily led to the harm of this future human and that this was intentional on our part. i.e. some mother who did not use heroin before getting pregnant takes up its use, explaining to her dealer that she wants to extract revenge on that bastard who knocked her up by presenting him with an addicted baby to deal with (Sick woman). She would be morally wrong and I hope legally as well.

It may be possible that one could manage some kind of negligence case, but negligence is normally due to the non performance of some action, rather than the performance.

What about laws against criminal negligence, manslaughter, or drunk driving?

Is suffering through your whole life blind, deformed, mentally retarded, or handicapped not harm? I understand that the question is subtle. But if one completely ignores the fetus and looks just at the effects upon the living person, there is still harm present.

Not to the person. There are people who were born blind or deformed with no experience of harm.

So why can't a fetus have rights?

Because no fetus is guaranteed to become a baby.

If we say fetus = person, then the question of manslaughter would be raised for any woman that has a miscarriage. Why did it happen? Was it natural or did she do something?

As to the original question; how do you enforce the rights? How do you police them? What do you do with a woman that drinks to excess? Is alcholism a disease? If so then do you prosecute?

Do we really want to have prisions full of pregnant woment that took a drink? Especially if she didn't know she was pregnant at the time?

Because no fetus is guaranteed to become a baby.

If we say fetus = person, then the question of manslaughter would be raised for any woman that has a miscarriage. Why did it happen? Was it natural or did she do something?
That's what you have in Ecuador, and in case there's any dispute, there's a government official who's basically the vagina inspector. Have a miscarriage, and you can be forced to allow this person give you a pelvic to determine if it looks like an abortion.

Not to the person. There are people who were born blind or deformed with no experience of harm.
That's not what they were referring to. And once the fetus comes out of the womb, they are a person too. Did they just not exist until their birth, or does the damage caused in the EDIT:pregnancy count.
And we are talking about harm done to fetuses (Plural of fetus, whatever that is), not whether there are actually blind, or deaf people around, and whether or not you could get blind or deaf without other people harming you.

Because no fetus is guaranteed to become a baby.

If we say fetus = person, then the question of manslaughter would be raised for any woman that has a miscarriage. Why did it happen? Was it natural or did she do something?

I am not saying the fetus should have full rights of personhood, only certain rights to a normal development.

As to the original question; how do you enforce the rights? How do you police them? What do you do with a woman that drinks to excess? Is alcholism a disease? If so then do you prosecute?

Do we really want to have prisions full of pregnant woment that took a drink? Especially if she didn't know she was pregnant at the time?

I don't want to work out the details of punishment and enforcement. But I will tell you that being pregnant should not be a get out of jail free card.

Do we really want to have prisions full of pregnant woment that took a drink? Especially if she didn't know she was pregnant at the time?
Once the baby is developed enough to be taking nutrients directly from the mother, the mother will most likely have noticed something. The problems mostly come from mothers who continually drink later in pregnancy, or binge drink during the pregnancy, after the zygote attaches to the uterine wall and establishes connections with the mother's body and shares her blood.

Currently, a fetus has no rights.

If it were to have any, they certainly couldn't trump the woman's. A human being always has full control over his/her body. There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that should give any person or government the right to deny a human the full control over his/her body. Anything else is enslavement, pure and simple.


hmmm.......

how do you feel about prisons/correctional facilities

Did they just not exist until their birth, or does the damage caused in the count.

Most likely the person still doesn't exist at birth or for a short time afterwards.

The developmental problems are caused and occur before the person becomes a person, and as such the person cannot be harmed by blindness that he has always possessed.

Most likely the person still doesn't exist at birth or for a short time afterwards.


Ok, is there a magic point in time, say 19.16323949 days after the birth that the baby starts living, or existing or whatever? Yes or no, with justification.

The developmental problems are caused and occur before the person becomes a person, and as such the person cannot be harmed by blindness that he has always possessed.
Can anyone else really understand if this has anything to do with the topic at hand? It is similar, talking about the possible damage done to fetuses, but the rest of it, the syntax just makes me want to :headbang:

Ok, is there a magic point in time, say 19.16323949 days after the birth that the baby starts living, or existing or whatever? Yes or no, with justification.

I wouldn't say that there is a magic point in time, as development occurs at varied rates.

Ok, is there a magic point in time, say 19.16323949 days after the birth that the baby starts living, or existing or whatever? Yes or no, with justification.



From day 1 its living... On Day (birth) it somehow miraculusly in a mater of seconds becomes a person. GREAT SCOTT ITS A BABY. The diffrence between a baby the day before its born and after as far as mental and phychological developed is small. THe only thing occuring is new imput from the senses and of course we can all agree that deaf people are people.

IF you dont believe we as a species are anything than organasisms then thier is no belief in the idea of a person (soul or mind or whatever) that is present in all mankind. This is the crux or should be of the abortion debate. WHEN IS A FETUS A PERSON then we go from thier... Right now we still dont even know if thier is a Human mind pychologist are still just guessing. IF thier is a possibility a boy is down a well shouldnt you look first and maybe wait for the boy to have a chance to crawl out before you close the lid?

Can anyone else really understand if this has anything to do with the topic at hand? It is similar, talking about the possible damage done to fetuses, but the rest of it, the syntax just makes me want to :headbang:

The physical deformaties are present prior to the existence of the person, therefore the person is not harmed by future blindness.

If we say that only people can have rights, then we cannot take action against someone for impairing the development of the fetus.

OK, so here is a question to people who make a big deal about the difference between a fetus and a live human being. With gains in medical science we are able to sustain life in a fetus that is born weeks premature, and I am inclined to believe that our ability to sustain this "premature" life will only increase with the passage of time. So would you consider it still the mother's choice if the fetus was in the third trimester, and almost ready to come out of the womb, or if it is in the womb does it not make a difference? Does the government have the right to protect the fetus if it has the possibility to live outside the womb, though there is no medical justification other than to protect it from harm by the mother? I understand that there are laws against late-stage abortions, but as far as I know there are no such laws against late-stage child endangerment. To restate my question: Would there be a date in the pregnancy when the fetus changes into a living being (due to the fact that its life can be maintained with modern medicine), or is it only when the fetus has been delivered that it crosses over to the living realm?
If you're talking about the thread topic, which is about the woman's lifestyle choices, then by the third trimester -- especially the last month or two -- she can pretty much do what she likes, if it's legal, because there will be little to no affect on fetal development by then.

And the original thought that brought this up in the first place was the idea that a fetus cannot have rights.

I say that a fetus cannot have a right to life because it is pointless, there is no value nor any purpose to it. However, there is value to be had in this right.

So why can't a fetus have rights?
For the same reason a tree doesn't have rights but a corporation does. Rights are legal constructs applied to "legal persons," and fetuses are not legal persons.

First, if the woman drinks like crazy, she is more than likely an unfit parent. I have yet to see a parent who drinks heavily and can be considered responsible and fit for their parenting responsibilities.
Second, the baby will probably have mental, or physical retardation as a result of both the smoking and drinking, so it will need extra care (This is of course assuming that it doesn't die in the womb from excessive damage during the pregnancy). I don't see how the person who put them in that condition can be reasonably expected by anyone to be able to care for them adequetly.
Please check my second post on page 1 for my full view on this.

Who knows? The US has never tried enforcing an anti-abortion law on the national level before. I don't know about other countries around the world.
We're not discussing abortion laws in this thread.

The physical deformaties are present prior to the existence of the person, therefore the person is not harmed by future blindness.

If we say that only people can have rights, then we cannot take action against someone for impairing the development of the fetus.
Ok, thank you, that cleared your argument up.
But yet it still makes no sense to me. First of all, to say that all blindness exists before the individual became a person is false, you are completely ruling out environmental causes for blindness.
And to say that the person is not harmed by the future blindness is totally false, obviously they are, or else people wouldn't want to correct their vision. If it didn't matter, they wouldn't spend money trying to affect it.
Now back to the second sentence, even if we are to accept your floating demarcation point for a baby becoming a person, what happens to the mass of biological material before that being becomes a person has an affect on the person. Consider, if you bought a car and the engine didn't work, would you say that the car was fine, because there were no problems with the car after it was assembled? The engine wasn't really part of the car until it was installed, so by your logic it would just be too bad, and nothing could be done to correct the situation. The only difference between my example and real life is that one has to do with a material object, and the other has to do with a human life, which is infinately more valuable.

We're not discussing abortion laws in this thread.
Then talk to the person who I was quoting, not me.

Please check my second post on page 1 for my full view on this.

well according to my post on page three, second line, fourth word, second letter. "e"

remember that next time

If you're talking about the thread topic, which is about the woman's lifestyle choices, then by the third trimester -- especially the last month or two -- she can pretty much do what she likes, if it's legal, because there will be little to no affect on fetal development by then.
You, my friend, are misinformed.

I am not saying the fetus should have full rights of personhood, only certain rights to a normal development.



I don't want to work out the details of punishment and enforcement. But I will tell you that being pregnant should not be a get out of jail free card.
It shouldn't be a go to jail just in case card, either (figuratively speaking).

For the same reason a tree doesn't have rights but a corporation does. Rights are legal constructs applied to "legal persons," and fetuses are not legal persons.

Beat a dog to death and see if it has legal rights.

Beat a dog to death and see if it has legal rights.
Oh snap, you got served.

It shouldn't be a go to jail just in case card, either (figuratively speaking).

Certainly not.

You, my friend, are misinformed.
No, you are.

See? You're not the only one who can dismiss someone else's comment without explaining why. Now we're even. Care to start again with an explanation of why I'm wrong?

I'm serious. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Just don't get lazy and high-handed, please.

What about laws against criminal negligence, manslaughter, or drunk driving?

Negligence (criminal or otherwise) is the result of non action rather than action, and so does not apply here. Manslaughter is just unintentional murder, and I had understood that this was to be presumed to be acceptable with regard to a foetus. (We do not prosecute women who have miscarriages in late term which the foetus does not survive for manslaughter do we?).

This leaves us with DUI. Now DUI is a public safety measure. It is based on the presumption that we have the right to be safe from the effects of another person acting in a way that is known to be likely to place us at risk. As such it appears to be a good precedent for making GUI (!) an offence as well. (Gestating Under the Influence - not a Graphical User Interface in this case.)
The only doubt is whether the foetus is another person at the time that the mother places it at risk. DUI is a present time offence. It is not something that places others at risk in the future. Thus it is nnot comparable if we are considering the future harm to the life of the child instread of the present harm to the foetus, taken as a person other than the mother. This leads back to the same old arguments concerning aborton etc. i.e if you accept that abortion is legal then GUI is also legal.

Please check my second post on page 1 for my full view on this.
I know what your view is, and it has some good points. There should be a case by case analysis of all sitations, and if a woman is an alcoholic, than adequate help should be given to correct her condition. However, even though she may have a disease, it is one of the most curable ones on earth if the person who has it is willing to work towards their recovery. Maybe the woman should be given some slack, but it isn't a stretch to say a woman is trying to kill her fetus/baby by heavily drinking, before or after the pregnancy.

No, you are.

See? You're not the only one who can dismiss someone else's comment without explaining why. Now we're even. Care to start again with an explanation of why I'm wrong?
Really? Well that's odd.:confused:

The third trimester is a period mainly of growth for the fetus, so while drinking during this time may not have the same affect on the fetus as it would during the second trimester, when most of the mental and main physical developement is occuring, it still can screw a kid up pretty bad. Any time that you introduce a toxin into a body, it is going to cause damage, and all drugs, no matter what they are used for, are toxins in some dosage.

Ok, thank you, that cleared your argument up.
But yet it still makes no sense to me. First of all, to say that all blindness exists before the individual became a person is false, you are completely ruling out environmental causes for blindness.

Those instances of blindness are not important to our discussion.

And to say that the person is not harmed by the future blindness is totally false, obviously they are, or else people wouldn't want to correct their vision. If it didn't matter, they wouldn't spend money trying to affect it.

If I am broke now, I have not been harmed if I am broke in the future.

Now back to the second sentence, even if we are to accept your floating demarcation point for a baby becoming a person, what happens to the mass of biological material before that being becomes a person has an affect on the person. Consider, if you bought a car and the engine didn't work, would you say that the car was fine, because there were no problems with the car after it was assembled? The engine wasn't really part of the car until it was installed, so by your logic it would just be too bad, and nothing could be done to correct the situation. The only difference between my example and real life is that one has to do with a material object, and the other has to do with a human life, which is infinately more valuable.

What?

I'm sorry, but I have to go to sleep or I'll collapse, but thanks for the conversation guys. g'night.

That is the way I feel about it.

I liked the question because it places people in a difficult situation. It is a central point of the abortion argument that the fetus is a potential person, and not a real person, and as such does not possess rights. But then again it is extremely difficult to not support punishment to someone who knowingly causes the birth of a malformed child.

The child has rights. Thus, it can sue on the basis of harm caused to it. This is no different from being able to sue a pharmaceutical company that knew their medication could cause birth defects, but did not report that. A woman who chooses to carry to term knows that what she ingests can cause birth defects. If it does so, she is responsible for them, just as the pharmaceutical company is responsible for any birth defects it causes.

I know what your view is, and it has some good points. There should be a case by case analysis of all sitations, and if a woman is an alcoholic, than adequate help should be given to correct her condition. However, even though she may have a disease, it is one of the most curable ones on earth if the person who has it is willing to work towards their recovery. Maybe the woman should be given some slack, but it isn't a stretch to say a woman is trying to kill her fetus/baby by heavily drinking, before or after the pregnancy.

The highlighted word makes it a stretch. Show me the evidence for intent. Or are you going to argue that a woman who lives in a highly polluted area is also trying to kill any foetus she may be bearing. After all she could move. Or how about the women doing heavy labour. She could quit her job.

Those instances of blindness are not important to our discussion.



If I am broke now, I have not been harmed if I am broke in the future.



What?
If you are broke now, you are being harmed by being broke now. In the future, you are still being harmed by being broke, it may not be any more harm than before, but you are still being harmed.
And in response to your third line.:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: I don't have time to use small words, I'm going to sleep.

The highlighted word makes it a stretch. Show me the evidence for intent. Or are you going to argue that a woman who lives in a highly polluted area is also trying to kill any foetus she may be bearing. After all she could move. Or how about the women doing heavy labour. She could quit her job.
If you read the post I said that there should be a case by case analysis of the alcoholism. This would entail an investigation into whether or not the mother was trying to kill the fetus, or whatever measures the government wanted to take.

From the other thread:

That is a different scenario. With the fetus, I am saying that the harm occurs while there are no rights, rights are provided after the fact.

In your scenario, when the harm occurs there is a definite violation of rights.

It is not a matter of when the action takes place, it is a matter of when the harm takes place.

And the harm takes place over the course of a lifetime. One can hardly say that a child born with birth defects as the result of toxins ingested during fetal development is not harmed. And to define harm as such would wipe out all malpractice lawsuits during pregnancy in which the fetus (and thus the future child) is harmed. Only an instance of malpractice in which the mother is directly harmed could be used.

If you read the post I said that there should be a case by case analysis of the alcoholism. This would entail an investigation into whether or not the mother was trying to kill the fetus, or whatever measures the government wanted to take.

You then presumed that she was guilty in you concluding sentence, thus rendering meaningless all the rest of the conditionals. A nice trick, but a trick none the less.

So I addressed your conclusion, as addressing the argument was pointless given that the conclusion did not derive from it.

Negligence (criminal or otherwise) is the result of non action rather than action, and so does not apply here. Manslaughter is just unintentional murder, and I had understood that this was to be presumed to be acceptable with regard to a foetus. (We do not prosecute women who have miscarriages in late term which the foetus does not survive for manslaughter do we?).

Although I think negligence can be characterized as action without consideration, I was refering to what you were saying about knowing the possible effects of our actions.

There are laws that require us to be aware of possible results for actions and to take responsibility for these actions.

This leaves us with DUI. Now DUI is a public safety measure. It is based on the presumption that we have the right to be safe from the effects of another person acting in a way that is known to be likely to place us at risk. As such it appears to be a good precedent for making GUI (!) an offence as well. (Gestating Under the Influence - not a Graphical User Interface in this case.)
The only doubt is whether the foetus is another person at the time that the mother places it at risk. DUI is a present time offence. It is not something that places others at risk in the future. Thus it is nnot comparable if we are considering the future harm to the life of the child instread of the present harm to the foetus, taken as a person other than the mother. This leads back to the same old arguments concerning aborton etc. i.e if you accept that abortion is legal then GUI is also legal.

I understand the present time offense but I question whether rights necessarily apply only to people.

Beat a dog to death and see if it has legal rights.
The dead don't have rights, either.

Look, "rights" are sets of legal rules that allow people to control, to a greater or lesser degree, their interactions with others and with the state. Rights belong to "people." But when people start broadening their concerns, the law starts expanding the definition of "person" to satisfy those concerns. So, trees are living things but they are not persons and do not have rights because nobody is granting them rights. Corporations are artificial constructs but they are called persons and given rights under US law (insanely, imo) because many businessmen wanted that to happen. Animals are living creatures but they are not persons and do not have rights except to the extent that humans, out of sympathy for living beings, choose to extend the protection of rights to them. In most cases, this is just the appearance of rights. Laws that punish animal cruelty do not actually extend legal rights to animals. What they really do is put an obligation to behave a certain way on the owners of animals. But we still kill animals for food, for science, because we consider them pests, or dangerous to ourselves, or just for fun, and no human being will be sent to jail for that. And no court will ever put the welfare of an animal before the welfare of a human being. Period.

Fetuses are not "legal persons" under the law, therefore, they do not have rights. We can either have them declared legal persons and then argue over whether their rights trump women's rights. Or we can do as we do with animals, namely extend the protection of some rights to them by our choice -- but then, legally, those protections will never trump the rights of a born person, such as the pregnant woman.

And in response to your third line.[snip] I don't have time to use small words, I'm going to sleep.

I tried to make sense of that paragraph, and failed as well. Perhaps you had better get some sleep.

For this issue, we must first define what a person is and when a lump of flesh turns into a person. The traditional Judeo-Christian belief is simple. When you have unprotected sex, there's a small proto-person in you. It's a person, according to some. See? Simple. However, with others, it gets more complex. Is a fetus not person until complete birth? If so, then if a woman blows its head off right before cutting the cord, would it be murder? What if she punches herself in the gut right before the baby leaves her womb, thereby killing it? IS it murder or just abortian? What about right after the water breaks?

See my point? One answer is loved because it's simple. The other is contraversial because it is so complex.

Then there's responsibility. If a woman gets pregnant and is determined to have the kid, shouldn't she take more responsibility? She isn't carrying around a brick. She's carrying around what will likely become a person. Am I wrong for thinking that she now has more responsibility? Her smoking and drinking won't be hurting just her. Her baby could be born an addict because the mother didn't think ahead. Shouldn't the mother lose some privelidges? After all, a man would get stuck with child support. He humped her and now he has to pay the price for that one night. Am I wrong to think that the woman, with her "luxory" of choice between Mr. babykiller and dr. malpractice has the power to decide the fate of a potential future person. That's a great power. Shouldn't great power always come with great responsibility? If she gets pregnant, shouldn't she lose some privilages? I know the false-femenists will have a field day burning my dick and bashing my head open with this statement, but shouldn't actions come with consequences? Is it wrong to make people accountable for their actions?

-the Pie

If you are broke now, you are being harmed by being broke now. In the future, you are still being harmed by being broke, it may not be any more harm than before, but you are still being harmed.

Harm is a process, it is a change, it cannot occur in the instance, which is what now is.

And in response to your third line.:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: I don't have time to use small words, I'm going to sleep.

You didn't use any words that confused me on their own. It was your analogy that compared the engine of a car to the cognizance of a human that confused me.

You could also save some time for posting if you stopped hitting the headbang smiley.

Really? Well that's odd.:confused:

The third trimester is a period mainly of growth for the fetus, so while drinking during this time may not have the same affect on the fetus as it would during the second trimester, when most of the mental and main physical developement is occuring, it still can screw a kid up pretty bad. Any time that you introduce a toxin into a body, it is going to cause damage, and all drugs, no matter what they are used for, are toxins in some dosage.
OK, thanks for the info. I amend my original statement then to include the third trimester in my position about when it might be proper for the state declare a woman unfit.

See? That wasn't so hard, now, was it?

Fetuses are not "legal persons" under the law, therefore, they do not have rights. We can either have them declared legal persons and then argue over whether their rights trump women's rights. Or we can do as we do with animals, namely extend the protection of some rights to them by our choice -- but then, legally, those protections will never trump the rights of a born person, such as the pregnant woman.

We aren't talking about rights afforded to a fetus, however. We are talking about rights afforded to a born human being - the child that results from a pregnancy.

If a pharmaceutical company or company that pollutes drinking water can be sued for birth defects; if a doctor who screws up during pregnancy, leading to the fetus experiencing hypoxia and having defects can be sued for malpractice, even if the mother is not harmed - then a mother can be sued by her child (or a representative of the child) for harm her actions caused to it.

Although I think negligence can be characterized as action without consideration, I was refering to what you were saying about knowing the possible effects of our actions.

There are laws that require us to be aware of possible results for actions and to take responsibility for these actions.

But very few of them, and these are the laws under which it is most difficult to obtain convictions. I honestly think that such laws are wrong, as they do depend on the presumption that we can accurately predict the future, which we patently cannot.



I understand the present time offense but I question whether rights necessarily apply only to people.

In the revolutions and rights thread I thoufght I had made this clear, but I will repeat it here.

Rights only apply to persons for two reasons.
1. They are necessarily reciprical. If I have the right to X then I have to extend this same right to you.
2. Rights entail obligations and an obligation can only be accepted by an entity that understands the obligation.

As rights have these properties they are highly limited in their object. Only persons (in a technical sense, which includes corporations and governments etc.) can bear rights.

Animals are living creatures but they are not persons and do not have rights except to the extent that humans, out of sympathy for living beings, choose to extend the protection of rights to them. In most cases, this is just the appearance of rights. Laws that punish animal cruelty do not actually extend legal rights to animals. What they really do is put an obligation to behave a certain way on the owners of animals.

Obligations placed on a person to behave in a certain manner in relation to another is a right, not just the appearance of a right.

Never the less, why can't this above part apply to a fetus?

But we still kill animals for food, for science, because we consider them pests, or dangerous to ourselves, or just for fun, and no human being will be sent to jail for that. And no court will ever put the welfare of an animal before the welfare of a human being. Period.

And I am not suggesting that the fetus have the full rights of personhood either. In fact, I have been quite clear that there should be no protection of the fetus when it comes to abortion. The mother must come first.

Rights only apply to persons for two reasons.
1. They are necessarily reciprical. If I have the right to X then I have to extend this same right to you.

Why are they necessarily reciprocal? Is-Ought?

Why are they necessarily reciprocal? Is-Ought?

Non universal rights are not rights they are priveleges. Anything that is a right has to be extended to all individuals. On a personal basis this makes them necessarily reciprocal. If I have the right to do X or be free from Y then I have to extend this same right to you, or it simply is not a right.

Non universal rights are not rights they are priveleges. Anything that is a right has to be extended to all individuals. On a personal basis this makes them necessarily reciprocal. If I have the right to do X or be free from Y then I have to extend this same right to you, or it simply is not a right.

That still seems like an is-ought argument to me.

How about rights for mental deficients and children?

We aren't talking about rights afforded to a fetus, however. We are talking about rights afforded to a born human being - the child that results from a pregnancy.

If a pharmaceutical company or company that pollutes drinking water can be sued for birth defects; if a doctor who screws up during pregnancy, leading to the fetus experiencing hypoxia and having defects can be sued for malpractice, even if the mother is not harmed - then a mother can be sued by her child (or a representative of the child) for harm her actions caused to it.
The OP is asking if the fetus has a right to preventatively force a limitation on the pregnant woman in order to prevent harm to itself. So it would not be a question of a born person (i.e. the damaged child) seeking redress for the harm done to it, and seeking that remedy after it was born and invested with rights. Rather it would be a question of a fetus having the right to dictate rules to a born person (i.e. the woman).

Now, obviously, a fetus can't do that, literally, so we would be talking about an outside authority stepping in and doing this on the fetus's behalf, without the fetus petitioning for such action -- just on the presumption that such action should be taken.

Equally obviously, a born child has the right to seek redress for harm done to it. A born child (and/or its legal guardians) could easily sue a negligent mother for its medical expenses that are attributable to damage done to it by her negligent behavior.

But does this mean that the right to prevent such behavior should be granted to a fetus in utero, as some form of extension of the right it would get upon birth?

I am strongly opposed to granting such rights to fetuses, but on the other hand, I think that if a woman makes a voluntary commitment to produce a child and then sabotages her own pregnancy, and does so willfully and knowingly, then there may be a case for the state taking action -- but what kind of action, remedial or preventative?

I say, you can't punish someone for doing something that is legal, so if the dangerous behavior is legal, you can urge the pregnant woman very strongly not to do it, but you can't take action against her for doing it. However, in situations such as I describe above, you may be able to use that to have her declared unfit to be a parent. That would be remedial action, I suppose.

That still seems like an is-ought argument to me.

How about rights for mental deficients and children?

From my perspective they do not have rights, but we do have obligations toward them. the same way as we have obligations toward animals and the ecosystem. Whilst rights always carry obligations, not all obligatons are derived from rights. Some are derived from moral judgements, and these are the ones that bind us with respect to children, mental deficients, animals, nature in general etc.

There is no is-ought argument there. I am not arguing from an existential phrase to an intentional phrase. I am arguing that if I have a right then you too have the same right. It is an is-is argument.

Obligations placed on a person to behave in a certain manner in relation to another is a right, not just the appearance of a right.
No, because, as AB Again explains, it cannot be reciprocal. The dog cannot be obligated to treat you a certain way. I.e. the dog cannot extend the same right to you. And if the dog does treat you badly, you have no recourse against it except, possibly, to have it killed. Not much of a right for the dog, then, either, is it?

Never the less, why can't this above part apply to a fetus?
For the reason given above. It is not reciprocal. There is no protection for the woman against the fetus for any intrusion, burden, or harm it may do to her life, present or future. There is nothing the fetus can do or refrain from doing to benefit the woman. If the protection of such a right is extended to the fetus, it would be in the same way it is extended to a dog.

And I am not suggesting that the fetus have the full rights of personhood either. In fact, I have been quite clear that there should be no protection of the fetus when it comes to abortion. The mother must come first.
And I agree with you on that, but you must think carefully about how far you want to go to avoid unnecessary harm to fetuses that are not being aborted but still avoid undermining the pre-eminent rights of women.

From my perspective they do not have rights, but we do have obligations toward them. the same way as we have obligations toward animals and the ecosystem. Whilst rights always carry obligations, not all obligatons are derived from rights. Some are derived from moral judgements, and these are the ones that bind us with respect to children, mental deficients, animals, nature in general etc.

I can accept that reasoning, but I don't see any practical difference.

There is no is-ought argument there. I am not arguing from an existential phrase to an intentional phrase. I am arguing that if I have a right then you too have the same right. It is an is-is argument.

I don't see all individuals have a right follows from one individual has a right. I see the is of held rights, and see the ought of universally held rights.

That still seems like an is-ought argument to me.

How about rights for mental deficients and children?
Regarding why rights have to be reciprocal:

If I say I and people like me can have freedom of religion and worship as we please, but you and people like you can't, you all have to join Church X, is there a right to religious freedom in the society? Or is one class claiming a privilege of religious freedom that is denied to others?

As for mental deficients and children, rights are things that are used or exercised by people, and many rights are granted to people to the degree they are able to use/exercise them.

So every mental deficient and child who is born has a right to food, water, to worship and speak as they please, etc. But other rights -- such as the right to own property, to enter into transactions, to give and receive obligations, to vote, to drink alcohol, right to marry, etc. -- are not given to them unless and until they can demonstrate that they are able and competent to do them. You can't make a contract that is binding on a 6-year-old because such a young child is not legally considered competent to understand the obligations of a contract, for instance.

I can accept that reasoning, but I don't see any practical difference.
The difference is in the recipricality of rights. Which you seem to think is something that I am arguing for, whereas it is part of the definition of a right.



I don't see all individuals have a right follows from one individual has a right. I see the is of held rights, and see the ought of universally held rights.

If you see held rights, then for these to be rights rather than permits or priveleges, they have to be universal. It is as simple as that. If something is a human (or legal) right then it applies to all people (subject to that law). If it did not, then it would not be a right.

No, because, as AB Again explains, it cannot be reciprocal. The dog cannot be obligated to treat you a certain way. I.e. the dog cannot extend the same right to you. And if the dog does treat you badly, you have no recourse against it except, possibly, to have it killed. Not much of a right for the dog, then, either, is it?

No fair, next time you have to respond before Alien Born.

And actually, I think it is illegal for private individuals to "dispose" of pets on their own. It must be administered by a vet or pet shelter.

For the reason given above. It is not reciprocal. There is no protection for the woman against the fetus for any intrusion, burden, or harm it may do to her life, present or future. There is nothing the fetus can do or refrain from doing to benefit the woman. If the protection of such a right is extended to the fetus, it would be in the same way it is extended to a dog.

Even applying this definition, what prevents us from extending the privelege to a fetus on moral grounds.

And I agree with you on that, but you must think carefully about how far you want to go to avoid unnecessary harm to fetuses that are not being aborted but still avoid undermining the pre-eminent rights of women.

The right to drink or smoke has never been a particularly respected one, not just as for women, but for everyone.

Regarding why rights have to be reciprocal:

If I say I and people like me can have freedom of religion and worship as we please, but you and people like you can't, you all have to join Church X, is there a right to religious freedom in the society? Or is one class claiming a privilege of religious freedom that is denied to others?

I would say that they are claiming a religious rights, while denying religious rights to another group. Reciprocality seems to be a superflous addition to the definition, especially when we consider how rights are formed.

As for mental deficients and children, rights are things that are used or exercised by people, and many rights are granted to people to the degree they are able to use/exercise them.

There are a great many rights that children can exploit without offering reciprocally, there are always tragic stories about children who kill family members when they find a gun. They cannot possibly understand that right to life, but we afford it to them all the same.

No fair, next time you have to respond before Alien Born.

And actually, I think it is illegal for private individuals to "dispose" of pets on their own. It must be administered by a vet or pet shelter.
If someone's dog bites you, you can petition your local authorities to have it declared vicious and order it killed. If it's your own dog, you can have it killed by a vet on the grounds it is vicious. In many jurisdictions, all it takes is one bite to sign a dog's death warrant.

Even applying this definition, what prevents us from extending the privelege to a fetus on moral grounds.
Nothing but the slippery slope of the anti-choice movement and anti-women's rights extremists. Are you so concerned with fetal alcohol syndrome that you would give them grounds to argue that fetuses have a right to pre-emptively stop women from harming them?

You know, as the law stands now, you (rhetorical "you") have the exact same ability as the anti-choicers to press your cause without limiting women's civil liberties. The (universal) right of free speech lets you advocate long and loud for women to give up drinking and smoking, without enacting laws that would criminalize such behavior for women.

The right to drink or smoke has never been a particularly respected one, not just as for women, but for everyone.
That's not really the point, though. You can't argue in favor of self-determination for women for some aspects of their lives, but argue against it for aspects that you personally disapprove of. It makes you seem rather like those who want to outlaw abortion on moral grounds.

Besides, you could easily outlaw liquor and tobacco -- and relive the heady days of Prohibition.

The difference is in the recipricality of rights. Which you seem to think is something that I am arguing for, whereas it is part of the definition of a right.

I guess I can't argue against a definition, although I want to.

But tieing this into the original discussion, this doesn't preclude us from extending the privelege to a fetus on moral grounds. Certainly there is a some moral ground to base this on.

I would say that they are claiming a religious rights, while denying religious rights to another group. Reciprocality seems to be a superflous addition to the definition, especially when we consider how rights are formed.
I'm sorry, but you are mis-using the term "right." I'm too tired to pursue this now, but please re-read this part of the discussion and consider whether you can't agree that there is a functional difference between a rule that says "people can do this" and one that says "I can do this but you can't." The first is a right (meaning a human or civil right), the second is a privilege.

There are a great many rights that children can exploit without offering reciprocally, there are always tragic stories about children who kill family members when they find a gun. They cannot possibly understand that right to life, but we afford it to them all the same.
I'm not following you here. They shoot someone becuase they don't understand a right to life, but we grant them a right to life anyway?
:confused:

EDIT: Oh, now I think I get it. But the kinds of shootings you're talking about are accidents. Kids are not exempted from the obligation not to murder people deliberately. How do you think there such things as juvenile correctional facilities? This is not a good example.

If someone's dog bites you, you can petition your local authorities to have it declared vicious and order it killed. If it's your own dog, you can have it killed by a vet on the grounds it is vicious. In many jurisdictions, all it takes is one bite to sign a dog's death warrant.

Which is no different than the process for human's. Except for the whole death warrant thing.

Nothing but the slippery slope of the anti-choice movement and anti-women's rights extremists. Are you so concerned with fetal alcohol syndrome that you would give them grounds to argue that fetuses have a right to pre-emptively stop women from harming them?

I have argued both sides of this argument.

Do I think that fetuses necessarily receive no protection from government (priveleges, rights, whatever), no.

Do I think that the presence of a fetus can prohibit a woman from behavior, I'm not sold on the idea.

Do I think that the desire to drink, smoke, or take drugs is justifiable reason to bring deformed people in to the world, no.

You know, as the law stands now, you (rhetorical "you") have the exact same ability as the anti-choicers to press your cause without limiting women's civil liberties. The (universal) right of free speech lets you advocate long and loud for women to give up drinking and smoking, without enacting laws that would criminalize such behavior for women.

Certainly. I am also well within my rights to seek law that reflects a percieved moral obligation.

That's not really the point, though. You can't argue in favor of self-determination for women for some aspects of their lives, but argue against it for aspects that you personally disapprove of. It makes you seem rather like those who want to outlaw abortion on moral grounds.

Self-determination has its limits.

Besides, you could easily outlaw liquor and tobacco -- and relive the heady days of Prohibition.

The alcohol and tobacco are not the problem, it is irresponsible behavior.

I'm sorry, but you are mis-using the term "right." I'm too tired to pursue this now, but please re-read this part of the discussion and consider whether you can't agree that there is a functional difference between a rule that says "people can do this" and one that says "I can do this but you can't." The first is a right (meaning a human or civil right), the second is a privilege.

It seems to me that the moral bases for priveleges and rights are the same, the enforcement of priveleges and rights are the same, the effects of priveleges and rights are the same.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

I'm not following you here. They shoot someone becuase they don't understand a right to life, but we grant them a right to life anyway?
:confused:

Regardless of it being an accident or not, small children cannot reciprocate the rights that are given to them, so then you conveniently call them priveleges.

To voluntarily get pregnant should mean certain "rights" lost. Those "rights" would cause harm to the kid if he or she would end up being born. Those "rights" also would have no physical benefits for the mother.

Those rights? One would be smoking. I know, it feels great until you learn that you have cancer. Should it be a right or a privilege? If your actions would hurt somebody, even if that somebody won't be a "person" for some time, you still hurt that person, right?

How can a woman get rid of this burden?
1. birth control.
2. abortian
3. sucking it up until the birth

no adult should be excempt from the responsibilities of choice. Your choice, your consequences.

There are many substances which can harm a developing foetus, some of which a pregnant woman has no choice over her exposure to. Perhaps there are some who would like to see the kind of draconian authoritarian apparatus that could actually administer a ban on reproduction by all those under a cloud of nuclear or chemical contamination. Doubtless there are also those who would have little problem with a similar situation regarding the complex interaction between pesticide, herbicide and other agri-business residues, food additives and/or GM crops: after all 'the choice' to consume these is made willfully and it is traditionally the poor and/or those determined as stupid to the point of defect who are the target of polemical censuriousness.

I would ask you to consider that there are circumstances where an individual's ability to exercise a choice over drug or alcohol abuse is meaningless. That, in fact, their life may be so unpleasant that 'substance misuse' or 'self-medication' is the only reason that they have not succumbed to suicide and that, furthermore, it is not only tolerated, but to a certain degree encouraged, as a tool of oppression. But then history is littered with examples of viewpoints which have attempted to stigmatise and penalise the poor for the social ills which they themselves have no choice in, but which actively support the priveliged lifestyles of those placing themselves on the moral highground.

What about other things which, all other things being equal, would harm the viability of one's offspring? That other great opium of the masses, religion, for instance. It could be argued that a person growing up with a strong aversion to birth control is likely to have children in a number and at times that are not as economically advantageous as a person without this 'problem' would face, thus suffering emotional trauma which would lessen both their quality of life and productivity, also making their offspring less viable, in purely evolutionary biological terms. It could be argued that a person from any fundamentalist religion would suffer a handicap in their potential to learn about the world and thus take advantage of all the available niches for advancement within a society: those with a strong belief in 'Creationism' for instance might well be less likely to become scientifically literate.

No, eugenics is a dirty word for a reason and a state assuming the right to determine fitness for parenthood is a slipery slope in that direction. It certainly is the case that tragedies occur; where a parent or family damages a child, physically, emotionally, or both. Rather than looking to blame individuals for this, we might just as easily ask what is wrong with the larger society that allows the system of pot-luck we currently endure, where a child's major influences will be from one or two individuals only; namely the nuclear family. If we lived in a society in which children were viewed as a collective responsibility, and by extension pregnant mothers-to-be, amongst wider communities, there would be statistically less likelyhood of any one adult's flaws from impacting adversely on any given child.

I asked this in the abortion thread, just to be a devil's advocate, but I decided it needed its own thread.
I do not believe a woman's rights should change in any way when she becomes pregnant. She should retain the right to end her participating in any and all organ/tissue donation. She should retain her right to use any legal substances. She should retain her right to choose what she eats and drinks. She should retain her right to engage in any activities that are not prohibited under the law.

I guess I can't argue against a definition, although I want to.

But tieing this into the original discussion, this doesn't preclude us from extending the privelege to a fetus on moral grounds. Certainly there is a some moral ground to base this on.

There is nothing that prevents the mother taking such a moral stance. One of the differences between moral judgements and rights though is their enforcability. If we agree that something has a right, then this becomes an enforcable state of affairs, but if we simply recognise the moral value in some action or abstention from action then this may not be enforcable. It becomes a matter of personal choice.

Some moral obligations we do choose to enforce, by common consent. Others are much more polemic, as not everyone has the same set of moral standards. Thus we protect children through laws but we do not protect mosquitos (they are animals as well). In this case there is the same dilemma that applies to abortion. The right of the mother to control over her body against the moral obligaton to protect the foetus.

As a related question:

A while back, I remember a local story about a woman who was taking herbs for some religious practice while she was pregnant. She mentioned this to her doctor, and the doctor called in the troops because it is known that these herbs may have serious medical effects on a growing fetus.

Though I myself don't think "religious beliefs" are worthy of particular consideration, I know that the majority of fetal-rights advocates are religious. So how would their feelings on religious freedom influence their stance on this issue?

As a related question:

A while back, I remember a local story about a woman who was taking herbs for some religious practice while she was pregnant. She mentioned this to her doctor, and the doctor called in the troops because it is known that these herbs may have serious medical effects on a growing fetus.

Though I myself don't think "religious beliefs" are worthy of particular consideration, I know that the majority of fetal-rights advocates are religious. So how would their feelings on religious freedom influence their stance on this issue?
The snarky answer is that the people you describe consider religious freedom to be anathema, or at best, the freedom to be a Presbyterian as opposed to a Baptist.

There are many times when we are not allowed to intake whatever substance we want in order to protect the rights of others.

We cannot drink while we drive, we cannot smoke in public buildings.



It seems to me that any reprecussions visited upon the mother would represent protection of the rights of a developing fetus.


Well, not quite true. We are not allowed to DRIVE when we are drunk. You can drink yourself into a stupor if you choose, but then may not operate a motor vehical (yes, I realize the law prohibits open containers of alcohol in a car, but that is to prevent you from driving drunk, not from BEING drunk). Likewise, you can smoke all you want; you must not do it in an public area that is designated non-smoking, but no such restrictions apply in your own home. In neither case are you prohibited from using legal toxic substances.

As to the rights of a developing fetus, until born, the fetus is basically a parasite, living off the mother. One could hope that the mother would understand that to use alcohol and to smoke would damage the guest she is carrying, but in truth, it is her house.

That being said, once the child is born, if the mother continued to feed it alcohol and smoke, the child should be removed. Birth (the time at which the child is no longer a parasite, but alive on its own) should be the time that its personal rights begin.

There is nothing that prevents the mother taking such a moral stance. One of the differences between moral judgements and rights though is their enforcability. If we agree that something has a right, then this becomes an enforcable state of affairs, but if we simply recognise the moral value in some action or abstention from action then this may not be enforcable. It becomes a matter of personal choice.

All rights and priveleges have their basis in perceived moral imperatives.

Surely everyone can take a moral stance against abusing animals, but we consider it a moral imperative to not abuse animals, and thus we grant them that privelege.

Some moral obligations we do choose to enforce, by common consent. Others are much more polemic, as not everyone has the same set of moral standards. Thus we protect children through laws but we do not protect mosquitos (they are animals as well). In this case there is the same dilemma that applies to abortion. The right of the mother to control over her body against the moral obligaton to protect the foetus.

Yes, and it becomes stickier when we consider that we are considering the right to use alcohol and tobacco, which is not a highly protected right, and when we consider that we are not merely protecting the fetus, we are guarding against deformed people.

Well, not quite true. We are not allowed to DRIVE when we are drunk. You can drink yourself into a stupor if you choose, but then may not operate a motor vehical (yes, I realize the law prohibits open containers of alcohol in a car, but that is to prevent you from driving drunk, not from BEING drunk). Likewise, you can smoke all you want; you must not do it in an public area that is designated non-smoking, but no such restrictions apply in your own home. In neither case are you prohibited from using legal toxic substances.

That does not change the fact that our rights to drink and smoke are limited for the protection and benefit of others. If I get slammed and stumble down the street chances are I'm going to get a public intoxication ticket.

That being said, once the child is born, if the mother continued to feed it alcohol and smoke, the child should be removed. Birth (the time at which the child is no longer a parasite, but alive on its own) should be the time that its personal rights begin.

What qualifies it for that protection after birth?

I do not believe a woman's rights should change in any way when she becomes pregnant. She should retain the right to end her participating in any and all organ/tissue donation. She should retain her right to use any legal substances. She should retain her right to choose what she eats and drinks. She should retain her right to engage in any activities that are not prohibited under the law.

I am inclined to agree with you, but it is certainly a difficult thing to do.

Fuck U Neil You Roxon!!!

Fuck U Neil You Roxon!!!

And a good afternoon to you too.

All rights and priveleges have their basis in perceived moral imperatives.

Surely everyone can take a moral stance against abusing animals, but we consider it a moral imperative to not abuse animals, and thus we grant them that privelege.
Rights are clearly based in moral evaluations but not all moral judgements get elevated to the status of rights. The correct treatment of animals is an example of a moral evaluation that our culture is in disagreement on, and as such is one that cannot be elevated to a rights status (aside from other logical problems with doing so.)

Another example of moral judgement that does not lead to a right is the one that you are concerned with in this thread; the moral evaluation of the use of recreational substances. The use of such is not a right as our culture does not take a clear position. There are substances which no one seems to object to (refined sugar, caffeine), there are substances which are tolerated but stigmatised nowadays (tobacco, alcohol), and there are substance which are socially prohibited (heroin, cocaine). As there is no agreement, there is no right to use recreational substances, even a limited set of them. We do not have the right to consume refined sugar, we just do not morally condemn the practice.

There are those, myself included, that think that we should have the right to decide for ourselves what we put into our bodies. If this were granted then we could not condemn a pregnant woman for using a substance that is noxious to the foetus (which at that point is part of her body) any more than we could condemn any other person. A right, is after all, inherently universal.
However it has not been granted by society (yet). As such the judgement as to whether a pregnant woman should or should not be permitted to use such substances remains a personal moral judgement, the same way that abortion does.



Yes, and it becomes stickier when we consider that we are considering the right to use alcohol and tobacco, which is not a highly protected right, and when we consider that we are not merely protecting the fetus, we are guarding against deformed people.

If we justify this on the basis of guarding against deformed people, in the future then there are a large number of people in the world that we could justifiably, by the same argument, forcibly sterilise. Anyone carrying any gene that can lead to deformity should be, by this line of thinking, prevented from procreating. Welcome to Gattaca

Should a woman lose her "right" to intake deadly toxins(you won't believe how small a dose of nicotine it takes to kill you) the moment she decides to get humped? Since she made HER CHOICE to get pregnant, she SHOULD have to take responsibility. No more booze. No more inhaling cigarette toxins. While the former does help the heart(at the expense of the brain and liver, both are vital organs needed for survival), the latter only helps spread cancer.

It's called responsibility. If a woman gets to choose what she does with the fetus, then she should have more responsibilities. After all, she is deciding if the world gets another contributing member or not. That's more power than you think. With great power comes great responsibility.

If she wanted to smoke and wake up with a headache and no memory of the previous night, then there's this magical, wonderful concept called birth control. I know people don't like the idea of a woman losing her government-granted rights all because she made a very life-altering choice, but that's life. The only truly natural right we pocess is the right to die one day. A woman gets to choose what she does with her life. If she doesn't want her life to change, then she should try any of these new concepts:
1. abstinence. Surprisingly easy for those who actually try, like me.
2. birth control. Not as fail-safe as 1, but she gets the pleasure of having a guy jam his dick up her vagina.
3. abortian. The most dangerous of the three and the most love-hated. If you can do 1 or 2, then do those instead of this one. Any woman who likes having these must be pretty disturbed.

Should a woman lose her "right" to intake deadly toxins(you won't believe how small a dose of nicotine it takes to kill you) the moment she decides to get humped? Since she made HER CHOICE to get pregnant, she SHOULD have to take responsibility. No more booze. No more inhaling cigarette toxins. While the former does help the heart(at the expense of the brain and liver, both are vital organs needed for survival), the latter only helps spread cancer.
So if she did not choose to become pregnant, then she does not lose this 'right'. Sex is not just for procreation, in fact it is infrequently for procreation. Additionally you are requiring the woman to know if she is pregnant when that is not always the case for a good six weeks or so. No one is saying that you have to smoke or drink, why do you have the authority to tell another person that they must not.

It's called responsibility. If a woman gets to choose what she does with the fetus, then she should have more responsibilities. After all, she is deciding if the world gets another contributing member or not. That's more power than you think. With great power comes great responsibility.
No she is not deciding that. Chance, luck, misfortune decide that more often than not. The power is not with the woman. She does not have sex thinking 'I have decided to have a child so I am going to get pregnant', or if she does then she is very naive. She may have sex desiring to get pregnant, but this does not giver her the power of decision over whether she does or not. The power simply is not there.

If she wanted to smoke and wake up with a headache and no memory of the previous night, then there's this magical, wonderful concept called birth control. I know people don't like the idea of a woman losing her government-granted rights all because she made a very life-altering choice, but that's life. The only truly natural right we pocess is the right to die one day.
Even if you assume the foetus to be a person you are attributing rights to the foetus at the expense of the rights of the mother. Why? What has the foetus done to deserve this priority over another person. You may argue that the mother has a duty to ensure that the foetus does not suffer, in which case you have to extend that to the genetic information that the mother provides (i.e. no woman that carries any hereditary disease should be allowed to have children) and to her selection of the father of the child. It matters not how emotionally attached to a man she is, if his genes are not good enough then she will have to find another man to be the father of her children. These are the logical consequences of your position here. Is that what you want?


A woman gets to choose what she does with her life.
Not any more apparently. It appears that you get to choose what she does.

If she doesn't want her life to change, then she should try any of these new concepts:
1. abstinence. Surprisingly easy for those who actually try, like me.
2. birth control. Not as fail-safe as 1, but she gets the pleasure of having a guy jam his dick up her vagina.
3. abortian. The most dangerous of the three and the most love-hated. If you can do 1 or 2, then do those instead of this one. Any woman who likes having these must be pretty disturbed.

They are options available to her, and you have every right to judge a woman who fails to take advantage of these as being morally deficient in your eyes. What you do not have the right to do is to enforce your opinion and judgement on her. Decide for yourself but not for others.

The OP is asking if the fetus has a right to preventatively force a limitation on the pregnant woman in order to prevent harm to itself. So it would not be a question of a born person (i.e. the damaged child) seeking redress for the harm done to it, and seeking that remedy after it was born and invested with rights. Rather it would be a question of a fetus having the right to dictate rules to a born person (i.e. the woman).

Ah, you are right. I shouldn't have said, that "we" are talking about that, so much as that is what "I" am talking about.

I agree that we cannot pass any laws to keep a woman from drinking/smoking/etc. I just think that, once she has chosen to carry a child to term, then any action she takes that she knows can cause harm to the child is something she can be held accountable for if such harm comes to pass.

Rights are clearly based in moral evaluations but not all moral judgements get elevated to the status of rights. The correct treatment of animals is an example of a moral evaluation that our culture is in disagreement on, and as such is one that cannot be elevated to a rights status (aside from other logical problems with doing so.)

Another example of moral judgement that does not lead to a right is the one that you are concerned with in this thread; the moral evaluation of the use of recreational substances. The use of such is not a right as our culture does not take a clear position. There are substances which no one seems to object to (refined sugar, caffeine), there are substances which are tolerated but stigmatised nowadays (tobacco, alcohol), and there are substance which are socially prohibited (heroin, cocaine). As there is no agreement, there is no right to use recreational substances, even a limited set of them. We do not have the right to consume refined sugar, we just do not morally condemn the practice.

There are those, myself included, that think that we should have the right to decide for ourselves what we put into our bodies. If this were granted then we could not condemn a pregnant woman for using a substance that is noxious to the foetus (which at that point is part of her body) any more than we could condemn any other person. A right, is after all, inherently universal.
However it has not been granted by society (yet). As such the judgement as to whether a pregnant woman should or should not be permitted to use such substances remains a personal moral judgement, the same way that abortion does.

Now hold on, it is not universal support that elevates a right, that must be true. We grant the right to have an abortion while there is quite a controversy over it.

Rights are created through the same legal/political process, on the same moral backing, as priveleges. The priveleges provided for animals are not universally supported, like many rights, yet the enforcement of those priveleges are carried out in the same manner as human rights.

There is no practical difference between a right and privelege, the only difference is the one provided in the definition.

I would say that there is a right to use legal recreational drugs, at least it fits the description of a right. Can someone physically prohibit you from drinking a beer, provided are drinking it within the law? Can you prohibit someone else? That appears to be a reciprocal obligation, regardless of one's moral standing on the issue.

If we justify this on the basis of guarding against deformed people, in the future then there are a large number of people in the world that we could justifiably, by the same argument, forcibly sterilise. Anyone carrying any gene that can lead to deformity should be, by this line of thinking, prevented from procreating. Welcome to Gattaca

This is true, although I don't like attacking one argument by lumping it with similar arguments. Stopping something that even you don't call a right, in a reasonable attempt to prevent deformities is not the same as a eugenics program.

I asked this in the abortion thread, just to be a devil's advocate, but I decided it needed its own thread.
Doesn't this solve the abortion issue for you? The fetus' right to freedom from poison and even life, infringes upon the mothers right to do what she wants with her own body. A right is only a right if it doesn't infringe upon others' rights. Therefore, the fetus cannot claim it's rights to life until they no longer infringe upon the rights of the mother to do as she pleases with her body. If my freedom of speech was linked to you shaving every hair on your body for the next nine months, and you didn't want to do it, who has to surrender their rights?

You know, as the law stands now, you (rhetorical "you") have the exact same ability as the anti-choicers to press your cause without limiting women's civil liberties. The (universal) right of free speech lets you advocate long and loud for women to give up drinking and smoking, without enacting laws that would criminalize such behavior for women.

Indeed. I know that I, for one, would never serve alcohol to an obviously pregnant woman, even if I were to lose my job because of it. Luckily for me, I was never put in that situation.


I do not believe a woman's rights should change in any way when she becomes pregnant. She should retain the right to end her participating in any and all organ/tissue donation. She should retain her right to use any legal substances. She should retain her right to choose what she eats and drinks. She should retain her right to engage in any activities that are not prohibited under the law.

Indeed. However, once she decides that she will carry to term, any such actions she take that she knows can cause defects in her child are actions that she can and should be held repsonsible for if harm actually ensues.

We know of fetal alcohol syndrome. You would be hard-pressed to find a pregnant woman who doesn't know of it. Thus, she cannot argue ignorance if she continues to drink and her child is born with it. That child has rights to hold the person responsible for the harm done to it accountable.


That being said, once the child is born, if the mother continued to feed it alcohol and smoke, the child should be removed. Birth (the time at which the child is no longer a parasite, but alive on its own) should be the time that its personal rights begin.

By this logic, no one can be sued for birth defects - no one at all. If a pharmaceutical company knowingly markets a drug that can cause birth defects, it cannot be held accountable for them, as the harm was done before birth.

By this logic, no OB/GYN can be held accountable for malpractice unless the mother is harmed. If the fetus is harmed before birth, it doesn't count.

By this logic, if I pollute the drinking water with a substance that does not harm born persons, but causes birth defects, I am not to be held responsible for that, as I have harmed no human beings. Never mind all the children who now have to live with the consequences of my actions.

And so on....

There are those, myself included, that think that we should have the right to decide for ourselves what we put into our bodies. If this were granted then we could not condemn a pregnant woman for using a substance that is noxious to the foetus (which at that point is part of her body) any more than we could condemn any other person. A right, is after all, inherently universal.

Yes, but those rights end where they cause harm to another, no? There are all sorts of things I could do that are perfectly legal, but that I would be held responsible for if another human being was harmed - even if that harm manifested itself years down the road.

A woman can ingest anything she likes, pregnant or not, if it is legal. But if harm ensues, if her child is thus born with defects that can be linked to voluntary choices on her part - choices that she knew might cause harm - then she is responsible for that harm.

Now hold on, it is not universal support that elevates a right, that must be true. We grant the right to have an abortion while there is quite a controversy over it.

Rights are created through the same legal/political process, on the same moral backing, as priveleges. The priveleges provided for animals are not universally supported, like many rights, yet the enforcement of those priveleges are carried out in the same manner as human rights.

There is no practical difference between a right and privelege, the only difference is the one provided in the definition.

I would say that there is a right to use legal recreational drugs, at least it fits the description of a right. Can someone physically prohibit you from drinking a beer, provided are drinking it within the law? Can you prohibit someone else? That appears to be a reciprocal obligation, regardless of one's moral standing on the issue.
To answer your last question first. Yes. The barman - liquor store owner etc. They can refuse to serve you. You do not have a right to drink beer, you are merely permitted to do so if you meet ceretain conditions.

Abortion is not a right, it is as simple as that. If it were there would not be this debate about it going on. Not everything that is legally permitted is a right. What makes something a right is the concept that it is something that it would be wrong to deny you and (legally) that the state is responsible for ensuring that you are not denied. Thus freedom of speech in the USA is a right, but abortion is not, nor is drinking a beer. If someone tries to prevent you from expressing your opinion they have commited an offence. If they refuse you a beer or an abortion they have not.
Now what type of things gain this generalised legal protection. Only those that are universally approved within the culture.


This is true, although I don't like attacking one argument by lumping it with similar arguments. Stopping something that even you don't call a right, in a reasonable attempt to prevent deformities is not the same as a eugenics program.
It is the same argument. A woman is responsible for the deformities of her offspring. That is the point of your argument against her using tobacco or alcohol. If this is the case, and the fetus has a right to be protected from this future harm, then the fetus also has a right to be free from any future harm deriving from avoidable genetic deformity as well.

Doesn't this solve the abortion issue for you? The fetus' right to freedom from poison and even life, infringes upon the mothers right to do what she wants with her own body. A right is only a right if it doesn't infringe upon others' rights. Therefore, the fetus cannot claim it's rights to life until they no longer infringe upon the rights of the mother to do as she pleases with her body. If my freedom of speech was linked to you shaving every hair on your body for the next nine months, and you didn't want to do it, who has to surrender their rights?

1. People do not have an unlimited right to do what they want with their body.

2. Rights quite often come in conflict with other rights.

Smoking in public places is an example of this. People have a right to smoke if they want, but their right to smoke is cancelled out by other's right to clean air.

Yes, but those rights end where they cause harm to another, no? There are all sorts of things I could do that are perfectly legal, but that I would be held responsible for if another human being was harmed - even if that harm manifested itself years down the road.

A woman can ingest anything she likes, pregnant or not, if it is legal. But if harm ensues, if her child is thus born with defects that can be linked to voluntary choices on her part - choices that she knew might cause harm - then she is responsible for that harm.

This depnds upon you viewing the foetus as being another. The crux of the entire abortion argument.

Additionally in this case there is the complication regarding the lengths which it is reasonable to expect a person to go to avoid future harm to another. With current genetic techniques, a case could easily be made that a woman was wrong to have a child if she carries any one of a number of genetic defects. She would be, by having a child, risking future harm to another person. The same as she would if she smoked or drank during preganancy.

To answer your last question first. Yes. The barman - liquor store owner etc. They can refuse to serve you. You do not have a right to drink beer, you are merely permitted to do so if you meet ceretain conditions.

That addresses property rights, not a right to consume alcohol.

Abortion is not a right, it is as simple as that. If it were there would not be this debate about it going on. Not everything that is legally permitted is a right. What makes something a right is the concept that it is something that it would be wrong to deny you and (legally) that the state is responsible for ensuring that you are not denied. Thus freedom of speech in the USA is a right, but abortion is not, nor is drinking a beer. If someone tries to prevent you from expressing your opinion they have commited an offence. If they refuse you a beer or an abortion they have not.
Now what type of things gain this generalised legal protection. Only those that are universally approved within the culture.

I cannot seriously think of one right that does not have some controversy swirling around it, besides maybe the right to life, if you don't consider the death penalty.

To say that a right can only be a right if it is universally accepted does not make sense to me. I would say that rights as you define them don't exist.

It is the same argument. A woman is responsible for the deformities of her offspring. That is the point of your argument against her using tobacco or alcohol. If this is the case, and the fetus has a right to be protected from this future harm, then the fetus also has a right to be free from any future harm deriving from avoidable genetic deformity as well.

It only addresses a small portion of my considerations.

This depnds upon you viewing the foetus as being another. The crux of the entire abortion argument.

I am going by current law. Currently, the fetus has no rights. Thus, we could not tell a pregnant woman that she cannot do "X" because she might harm the fetus - at least not until the point at which the fetus gains some protections - ie. the point at which elective abortions become illegal.

However, born persons do have rights - and they can sue for harm that was caused to them. The law has long held that a child (or someone acting on behalf of the child) can sue for harm that was caused in utero but manifests itself in the born human being.

Additionally in this case there is the complication regarding the lengths which it is reasonable to expect a person to go to avoid future harm to another.

"Reasonable" is a subjective term, but there is precedent for whta is and is not reasonable.

With current genetic techniques, a case could easily be made that a woman was wrong to have a child if she carries any one of a number of genetic defects. She would be, by having a child, risking future harm to another person. The same as she would if she smoked or drank during preganancy.

Genetic defects are not an action taken by a person. I cannot actively change my genes to cause or not cause a defect in a future child. I can, however, choose not to drink while pregnant, as I know that fetal alcohol syndrome exists.

If a person has a genetic defect that leads them to have their hands shake (ie. familial Parkinson's), are they going to be sued of they accidentally hit another person while having tremors? I suppose someone might try to sue for that, but they'd get laughed out of court. If a person has an epileptic seizure and drops a child, who is then hurt, are they held criminally liable? No. Thus, precedent in the law would suggest that "carrying" a genetic defect and passing it on would not be considered a reasonable basis for a lawsuit.

However, if a doctor knowingly prescribes a drug to a woman that is known to cause birth defects, and a child with birth defects is born, that child has the right to sue for damages. Thus, once again, precedent would suggest that *knowingly* taking actions that result in birth defects would be an actionable offense, if said defects manifest themselves.

I am going by current law. Currently, the fetus has no rights. Thus, we could not tell a pregnant woman that she cannot do "X" because she might harm the fetus - at least not until the point at which the fetus gains some protections - ie. the point at which elective abortions become illegal.

However, born persons do have rights - and they can sue for harm that was caused to them. The law has long held that a child (or someone acting on behalf of the child) can sue for harm that was caused in utero but manifests itself in the born human being.

And those laws use opposing reasoning. Rights (or priveleges) cannot be violated prior to their establishment. So either the fetus has protective priveleges, or harm caused in utero has no legal basis for punishment.

I am going by current law. Currently, the fetus has no rights. Thus, we could not tell a pregnant woman that she cannot do "X" because she might harm the fetus - at least not until the point at which the fetus gains some protections - ie. the point at which elective abortions become illegal.


I'd never considered that possible line of questioning, but that's a very interesting point. I do think, though, that you could still define the problem in terms of the mother: no mother I know raises a child with the intent of creating a maladaptive or deficient child. By this, I don't mean physically or mentally maladaptive--people, for instance, give birth to and raise children with Down Syndrome all the time, even though prior to about 1950, Down Syndrome children didn't usually last until breeding age. What I mean is that when a woman commits to having a baby, she wants it to be as healthy and well-functioning as it possibly can be. I think we can safely take that as given. In that case, however, we could define Company X's practice as interfering with the woman's intent towards her own body against her knowledge, which we would generally say is or ought to be illegal. That being the case, we can define Company X's action without necessarily committing ourselves to the idea that the fetus has rights of its own: it's the mother's rights that have been violated.

Genetic defects are not an action taken by a person. I cannot actively change my genes to cause or not cause a defect in a future child. I can, however, choose not to drink while pregnant, as I know that fetal alcohol syndrome exists.

Becoming preganant is an action taken by a person. Thus passing on genetic defects is the result of an action. I can actively not become pregnant, as Avika pointed out. I see no difference here.

If a person is responsible for any future harm to their offspring, then the effective cause of this future harm is irrelevant to their responsibility. Even if they are only responsible for harm due to action rather than omission, then they are still responsible for any genetic defect passed on. You are missing the point when you argue about being slapped by someone with Parkinson's. What I mean is in the future the parents of the person with parkinson's would be as criminally liable as the parents of a child with FAS. They have the means and ability to avoid having a defective cild. That they did not was their choice.

Note that I do not actually hold that this should be the situaton, but it is the consequence of holding the mother responsible for the future harm to a foetus.

I asked this in the abortion thread, just to be a devil's advocate, but I decided it needed its own thread.
Yes.

That addresses property rights, not a right to consume alcohol.
You asked if someone could stop you from having a beer. Well I answered that. Yes people can. Not all the time, not under all circumstances, but you can be stopped from drinking a beer in many situations. Nothing to do with property rights. I think I am missing something here.

I cannot seriously think of one right that does not have some controversy swirling around it, besides maybe the right to life, if you don't consider the death penalty.

To say that a right can only be a right if it is universally accepted does not make sense to me. I would say that rights as you define them don't exist.
Well that was the conclusion I came to as well. There are no rights, above and beyond legally attributed rights.


It only addresses a small portion of my considerations.
Which parts did I miss?

And those laws use opposing reasoning. Rights (or priveleges) cannot be violated prior to their establishment. So either the fetus has protective priveleges, or harm caused in utero has no legal basis for punishment.

Or "harm" is not defined only in the here and now. Harm can be used to describe the effects of an action taken before you were born, if it causes measureable problems.

What I mean is that when a woman commits to having a baby, she wants it to be as healthy and well-functioning as it possibly can be. I think we can safely take that as given.

If we could take that as a given, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, as a woman would never do things that she knew could cause birth defects.


If a person is responsible for any future harm to their offspring, then the effective cause of this future harm is irrelevant to their responsibility.

You mean like the cause of harm is irrelevant to responsibility in the law? You mean an accidental killing always gets the same punishment as an intentional one? You mean the law is never different for different circumstances?

Even if they are only responsible for harm due to action rather than omission, then they are still responsible for any genetic defect passed on. You are missing the point when you argue about being slapped by someone with Parkinson's.

No, you missed my point. The law does not hold people responsible for genetic defects or any harm that others incur thereof. Thus, there is no reason to believe that holding a mother responsible for intentionally doing something that she knew would cause her fetus to develop improperly would stretch to holding a mother responsible for whatever genetic problems she may or may not have.

You asked if someone could stop you from having a beer. Well I answered that. Yes people can. Not all the time, not under all circumstances, but you can be stopped from drinking a beer in many situations. Nothing to do with property rights. I think I am missing something here.

My exact phrase was "drinking a beer", not having a beer.

Are those instances where you can be stopped from consuming alcohol universally applied to all adults?

Well that was the conclusion I came to as well. There are no rights, above and beyond legally attributed rights.

Then there is hardly any difference between priveleges and rights, and argument for a right to be applied is no different than a privelege being applied.

Which parts did I miss?

The presumed costs of guarding against malformed humans. I never said that we should not allow people with deformities to be brought into the world, I only said we should guard against it. It is not an ultimate obligation, and the desire to uphold it is weighed against the infringements it places on the people involved.

I have very often stated that the ability (privelege, right, fucking semantics) to consume recreational drugs is not held in high regard and has been sacrificed rather indiscriminately in the past. Going by past precedent, there we can assume that the increased risk of deformities in children is enough to outlaw what is seen as a rather unimportant behavior.

You mean like the cause of harm is irrelevant to responsibility in the law? You mean an accidental killing always gets the same punishment as an intentional one? You mean the law is never different for different circumstances?
No. I said 'efficient' cause, and that word efficient is highly significant. If I shoot someone dead, then it does not matter if I use a 45 or a 9mm gun does it, from the point of view of the law. The gun in this case is the efficient cause of the victims death. My action is the final cause.

If through my action I cause my child to be harmed, then the method by which the child is harmed, the details of the mechanism, is not significant unless you could show that it was avoidable. Thus if I have a child that is caused to suffer due to its genetic heritage, with today's technology that is as culpable as having a child that is caused to suffer through my abuse of recreational substances. In both cases my action resulted in the suffering of a child and this was avoidable.


No, you missed my point. The law does not hold people responsible for genetic defects or any harm that others incur thereof. Thus, there is no reason to believe that holding a mother responsible for intentionally doing something that she knew would cause her fetus to develop improperly would stretch to holding a mother responsible for whatever genetic problems she may or may not have.

We are at cross purposes here. I am not concerned with what the law says in this case. I am taking the basic concept of the mother being responsible for the future harm, and that this future harm was avoidable; and looking to see where else this concept could apply. It certainly could apply to mothers bearing genticaly defective children. That it does not, at the moment, is irrelevant. It simply shows that the law is inconsistent. (Nothing new there.)

If we could take that as a given, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, as a woman would never do things that she knew could cause birth defects.

I'm willing to say that if she's taking drugs that she knows will cause birth defects, then she's not really committed to having the baby.

I'm willing to say that if she's taking drugs that she knows will cause birth defects, then she's not really committed to having the baby.

What about when she is taking drugs that may cause a birth defect, but without them she will certainly have a psychological bereakdown?
But she wants to have a baby.

Whose rights trump whose here?

(And in case you think this is far fetched these are the circumstances my wife was in.)

What about when she is taking drugs that may cause a birth defect, but without them she will certainly have a psychological bereakdown?
But she wants to have a baby.

Whose rights trump whose here?

(And in case you think this is far fetched these are the circumstances my wife was in.)
The all-too-common "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation. This is one of those tough questions, so let's leave it out until we know more about it.

Should a woman's right to partake in a certain type of merriment trump a baby's right to merely live? While the future kid's right to life interferes with the woman's right to do whatever she wants to herself(which is not absolute. see: illegal drugs, public intoxication, etc.), her right to do whatever she wants interferes with the fetus's right to life. See my point? One right interferes with another right. For instance, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre because although we have the right to free speech, it cannot trump the public's right to safety. Plus, if a woman chooses to get humped not attempt to do any form of birth control, she should not be free from responsibility. She's done the necesary steps for reproduction while not doing anything to stop it. I'm leaving out all forms of rape because rape isn't a choice.

She made a choice, while not completely pleasant, and she must deal with the consequences. Responsibility is not a cuss word, nor is it something evil. A man isn't free from responsibility. If he humps a girl and she chooses to have the baby, he can be forced to pay for it. Why should the woman, with such a big choice, be free from any and all non-lifethreatening consequences?

Which is no different than the process for human's. Except for the whole death warrant thing.
I think the death warrant thing actually makes a significant difference.

As for our topic -- the effect of what you are considering would be to put the pregnant woman in a similar position as the dog. She would be bound by a punitive law, controlled by a party she cannot negotiate with, without any way to protect herself from it. How can that possibly be fair?

I have argued both sides of this argument.

Do I think that fetuses necessarily receive no protection from government (priveleges, rights, whatever), no.

Do I think that the presence of a fetus can prohibit a woman from behavior, I'm not sold on the idea.

Do I think that the desire to drink, smoke, or take drugs is justifiable reason to bring deformed people in to the world, no.
I'm aware of this. I'm just trying to point out to you a major problem with the kind of law you are considering here, which btw is common to many moralistic laws.

Certainly. I am also well within my rights to seek law that reflects a percieved moral obligation.
Yes, you have that right, but I am trying to explain why it would be a bad idea to do that. Even the staunchest proponents of Prohibition finally ended up supporting the amendment that repealed it, publicly admitting that their attempt to legislate morality had been such a monumental failure that it not only actually increased American drinking, especially among the young, but also launched a bloody outburst of organized crime that brutally killed 1000s of people, as well as a general upswing of law-breaking among the general public. Fine that they realized their mistake, but the damage was already done, and we are still dealing with its legacy today. Would you really like to repeat that pattern here, when you have alternatives available?

Self-determination has its limits.

The alcohol and tobacco are not the problem, it is irresponsible behavior.
And you would presume to make your morals be the limit of what I can do? Not only would I call bullshit on that, but so would my enemies, the anti-choicers, who would argue (possibly reasonably) that if you can force your morals on me against my will, why can't they?

I'm sorry, VO, but we can't have everything be the way we think it should be and we can't save everyone we wish we could save. The only fair way to treat pregnancy is to give the woman authority over it and to trust her judgment with that authority, even if you disapprove of her decisions. They are her decisions to make, not yours.

If her decisions do result in harm, you may take remedial action after the fact, but you cannot prevent her from controlling her own body, pregnancy, and decisions without cutting the guts out her civil rights.

It seems to me that the moral bases for priveleges and rights are the same, the enforcement of priveleges and rights are the same, the effects of priveleges and rights are the same.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....



Regardless of it being an accident or not, small children cannot reciprocate the rights that are given to them, so then you conveniently call them priveleges.
I just completely disagree with you, but since it's not core to the topic -- and since it gives me a headache to work through it -- let's just agree to disagree on this.

originally posted by Upper Botswavia
That being said, once the child is born, if the mother continued to feed it alcohol and smoke, the child should be removed. Birth (the time at which the child is no longer a parasite, but alive on its own) should be the time that its personal rights begin
What qualifies it for that protection after birth?
The fact that it is born, which is the moment it becomes a legal person under the law and is invested with the rights of legal persons under the law.

The designation of "legal person," although misused when applied to artificial constructs like corporations, is not just an arbitrary label. Once a child is born, it is entirely its own person. There is no other individual who is entirely responsible for its continued life, and thus no one who has any right to claim complete control over it. It is an independent presence in the world that can interact with others in the world, is capable of harming/being harmed, benefitting others/receiving benefit, taking from the world/giving to the world. It takes its place in society and as such, it is immediately invested with all human rights and becomes invested with civil rights as it grows and becomes competent to exercise them.

That is the fundamental and inescapable difference between a child and a fetus.

This depnds upon you viewing the foetus as being another. The crux of the entire abortion argument.

Additionally in this case there is the complication regarding the lengths which it is reasonable to expect a person to go to avoid future harm to another. With current genetic techniques, a case could easily be made that a woman was wrong to have a child if she carries any one of a number of genetic defects. She would be, by having a child, risking future harm to another person. The same as she would if she smoked or drank during preganancy.
I believe Dem is talking about remedial action on the part of a born child after the fact, not preventative action on the part of a fetus.

There is an entire, nasty can of worms that can be opened up if we encourage children to sue their parents for bad decisions, but it is a more reasonable argument than giving rights to fetuses, in my opinion.

<snip>...(privelege, right, fucking semantics) ...<snip>
I know I said I'd drop this, but I just want to make one last remark because it does bother me, VO.

It's not just fucking semantics. There are both definitive and functional differences between a right and a privilege, which AB and I have explained. For some reason, you don't like this and don't want to accept it. Fine, whatever, but please don't cop an attitude about it, okay? It's just picking the scab on my ass over and over.

*(clarity junkie sez grrrrr....)*

All right, now I'm dropping it.

If through my action I cause my child to be harmed, then the method by which the child is harmed, the details of the mechanism, is not significant unless you could show that it was avoidable. Thus if I have a child that is caused to suffer due to its genetic heritage, with today's technology that is as culpable as having a child that is caused to suffer through my abuse of recreational substances. In both cases my action resulted in the suffering of a child and this was avoidable.

You seem to think we have the technology to prevent all genetic disorders - or even to predict if they will happen. We do not.

Meanwhile, we are talking about the difference between normal development of a child from a zygote and development that is altered by an outside substance. It is illogical to state that they are equivalent. A hard-coded genetic defect is hardly the same thing as fetal alcohol syndrome.


What about when she is taking drugs that may cause a birth defect, but without them she will certainly have a psychological bereakdown?

From a personal moral point of view, I would say that she needs to adopt, rather than try to have her own baby.

From a legal point of view, a mother can never be restricted from taking medications necessary for her own health (assuming those medications are legal) - nor can she later be sued because she took measures to protect her own health.

If a mother, for some reason, cannot undergo a major surgery, and instead gives birth traditionally, against the wishes of her doctor, she cannot be sued for that even if it causes harm. This is because the decision was a medical decision that she made for herself.

The decision to drink alcohol, on the other hand, is not a medical decision. It is not necessary for the mother's health.

But she wants to have a baby.

Then she should adopt. ("Should" being the operative word here, as I don't think we should legally keep her from doing so).


I believe Dem is talking about remedial action on the part of a born child after the fact, not preventative action on the part of a fetus.

Indeed.

There is an entire, nasty can of worms that can be opened up if we encourage children to sue their parents for bad decisions, but it is a more reasonable argument than giving rights to fetuses, in my opinion.

There can be, if people are completely unreasonable. However, based on what I have said - and precedent in the law - only actions that the mother knew were likely to cause birth defects would be subject to such action. If she ate a lot of Snickers during her pregnancy, and it came out later that eating lots of Snickers could cause birth defects, she would not be held responsible, as she had no reason to believe that her action could cause harm.

I'm sorry, but this is just a typical anti-choice pseudo-argument.

The all-too-common "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation. This is one of those tough questions, so let's leave it out until we know more about it.
In other words, this "all-too-common" situation undermines the blanket condemnations of choice that anti-choicers like to indulge in, so you would like to pretend it doesn't exist in order to avoid muddying up propagandistic rhetoric like this:

Should a woman's right to partake in a certain type of merriment trump a baby's right to merely live? While the future kid's right to life interferes with the woman's right to do whatever she wants to herself(which is not absolute. see: illegal drugs, public intoxication, etc.), her right to do whatever she wants interferes with the fetus's right to life.
Typical mischaracterization of abortion as a frivolous, spur of the moment indulgence of self-centered women who just don't care about others. A classic anti-choice myth that ignores the facts of who gets abortions and why.

See my point? One right interferes with another right. For instance, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre because although we have the right to free speech, it cannot trump the public's right to safety.
Another favorite cliche, but utterly meaningless because they are not comparable situations -- but it does allow the anti-choicer to paint abortion as a malicious act.

Plus, if a woman chooses to get humped not attempt to do any form of birth control, she should not be free from responsibility. She's done the necesary steps for reproduction while not doing anything to stop it. I'm leaving out all forms of rape because rape isn't a choice.

She made a choice, while not completely pleasant, and she must deal with the consequences. Responsibility is not a cuss word, nor is it something evil. A man isn't free from responsibility. If he humps a girl and she chooses to have the baby, he can be forced to pay for it. Why should the woman, with such a big choice, be free from any and all non-lifethreatening consequences?
Ah, the bread and butter of anti-choice -- pregnancy as punishment for being a slut.

You know what? This is not the thread for this nonsense. Take it over to the abortion thread this was spun off from, and we'll meet you there. Thanks.

You seem to think we have the technology to prevent all genetic disorders - or even to predict if they will happen. We do not.

Meanwhile, we are talking about the difference between normal development of a child from a zygote and development that is altered by an outside substance. It is illogical to state that they are equivalent. A hard-coded genetic defect is hardly the same thing as fetal alcohol syndrome.
<snip>

In defense of AB's slippery slope argument, there are many people who do think that people with genetic defects/diseases in their families should not reproduce, and some who think they should be prevented from reproducing. These are usually the same people who think people with Downs Syndrome or mental illnesses should be sterilized (which they used to be, often, 50 years ago). It is not at all unreasonable to think that such people would advocate for litigation against parents for birth defects. The eugenics genie was never stuffed back into its bottle.

There can be, if people are completely unreasonable. However, based on what I have said - and precedent in the law - only actions that the mother knew were likely to cause birth defects would be subject to such action. If she ate a lot of Snickers during her pregnancy, and it came out later that eating lots of Snickers could cause birth defects, she would not be held responsible, as she had no reason to believe that her action could cause harm.
Hahaha, you mean unreasonable like those personal injury lawyers who advertise on television?

You seem to think we have the technology to prevent all genetic disorders - or even to predict if they will happen. We do not.
We do have the means to screen, in utero, all embryos for known genetic disorders, and we do have the ability to terminate any pregnancy wherin such disorders are found. Whether we should is part of the debate here.

Meanwhile, we are talking about the difference between normal development of a child from a zygote and development that is altered by an outside substance. It is illogical to state that they are equivalent. A hard-coded genetic defect is hardly the same thing as fetal alcohol syndrome.
Who cares what was the mechanism that caused the defect, it is there and it was caused in some way that was preventable. Those are the facts. If I steal from you does it matter if what I steal was something you inherited, or something that you made yourself. No. The act of stealing is what is wrong.
The comparison is not illogical at all.


From a personal moral point of view, I would say that she needs to adopt, rather than try to have her own baby.

From a legal point of view, a mother can never be restricted from taking medications necessary for her own health (assuming those medications are legal) - nor can she later be sued because she took measures to protect her own health.
As it happens we have a healthy son, but we carefully monitored the situation and were prepared to abort the foetus if necessary. There is something very different, emotionally and psychologically in having your own child compared to adopting a child. At least for us. I know it is not rational, but it is there.

The decision to drink alcohol, on the other hand, is not a medical decision. It is not necessary for the mother's health.
There is still always here the assumption that the woman knows she is pregnant. Or are the people that are advocating that the woman is responsible for the harm done by the alcohol also advocating that women should be abstemious of all potentially harmful substances, at all times while they lead an active sex life post menarche and prior to menopause? I could agree that a woman who willfully and knowingly placed her unborn child at risk could be held responsible. But a woman who does this without any intent or desire is just as guilty, or not?



There can be, if people are completely unreasonable. However, based on what I have said - and precedent in the law - only actions that the mother knew were likely to cause birth defects would be subject to such action. If she ate a lot of Snickers during her pregnancy, and it came out later that eating lots of Snickers could cause birth defects, she would not be held responsible, as she had no reason to believe that her action could cause harm.

This returns back to the point above. I do have a question concerning the claim of ignorance being a valid defence or not. How much duty of care does a woman have in discovering whether a substance is potentially harmful to any unborn child she is carrying. At what point does it become reasonable to say that she did not realise that it was harmful. You mention Snickers, is this likely to be a cause of peanut intolerance, or type I diabetes? I can imagine that it could be. Is the mother to be held responsible if these happen?

As for our topic -- the effect of what you are considering would be to put the pregnant woman in a similar position as the dog. She would be bound by a punitive law, controlled by a party she cannot negotiate with, without any way to protect herself from it. How can that possibly be fair?

No, the fetus is cast into the role of the dog. The fetus has no control, the woman can dispose of it if she likes, but if she is going to keep it, she must show some reasonable level of care for it.

I'm aware of this. I'm just trying to point out to you a major problem with the kind of law you are considering here, which btw is common to many moralistic laws.

I am well aware of the problems of making a woman responsible for the fetus, but fetal alcohol syndrom is a senseless problem that can be dealt with with little intrusion into the mother's life.

Yes, you have that right, but I am trying to explain why it would be a bad idea to do that. Even the staunchest proponents of Prohibition finally ended up supporting the amendment that repealed it, publicly admitting that their attempt to legislate morality had been such a monumental failure that it not only actually increased American drinking, especially among the young, but also launched a bloody outburst of organized crime that brutally killed 1000s of people, as well as a general upswing of law-breaking among the general public. Fine that they realized their mistake, but the damage was already done, and we are still dealing with its legacy today. Would you really like to repeat that pattern here, when you have alternatives available?

How many laws can you provide that are not based in morality? I am guessing very few.

When you say moralistic, most of the laws you are thinking of are traditionally/religiously/puritanically moral, and I can assure you that I will not support a law for any of those reasons.

And you would presume to make your morals be the limit of what I can do? Not only would I call bullshit on that, but so would my enemies, the anti-choicers, who would argue (possibly reasonably) that if you can force your morals on me against my will, why can't they?

Once again, nearly all laws are moral obligations. I would not wish to impose my morality on someone, I would wish to call our society to decide that this is a moral imperative and thus make it society's morality. Which is pretty much what our coded (and non-coded) law is.

I'm sorry, VO, but we can't have everything be the way we think it should be and we can't save everyone we wish we could save. The only fair way to treat pregnancy is to give the woman authority over it and to trust her judgment with that authority, even if you disapprove of her decisions. They are her decisions to make, not yours.

This is unconvincing considering present laws we have that protect people from another's irresponsible action, protect animals from a person's irresponsible actions, and protect the environment from a person's irresponsible actions.

If her decisions do result in harm, you may take remedial action after the fact, but you cannot prevent her from controlling her own body, pregnancy, and decisions without cutting the guts out her civil rights.

As I have said, remedial action represents punishing a woman for harming the fetus. Remedial action is the most likely punishment in this situation.

The fact that it is born, which is the moment it becomes a legal person under the law and is invested with the rights of legal persons under the law.

The designation of "legal person," although misused when applied to artificial constructs like corporations, is not just an arbitrary label. Once a child is born, it is entirely its own person. There is no other individual who is entirely responsible for its continued life, and thus no one who has any right to claim complete control over it. It is an independent presence in the world that can interact with others in the world, is capable of harming/being harmed, benefitting others/receiving benefit, taking from the world/giving to the world. It takes its place in society and as such, it is immediately invested with all human rights and becomes invested with civil rights as it grows and becomes competent to exercise them.

That is the fundamental and inescapable difference between a child and a fetus.

You are precluded from making this argument. There is no way that a newborn or even a toddler can understand and reciprocate any of the rights of personhood. As rights are considered, by YOUR definition, there is no difference between child and fetus.

I just completely disagree with you, but since it's not core to the topic -- and since it gives me a headache to work through it -- let's just agree to disagree on this.

I know I said I'd drop this, but I just want to make one last remark because it does bother me, VO.

It's not just fucking semantics. There are both definitive and functional differences between a right and a privilege, which AB and I have explained. For some reason, you don't like this and don't want to accept it. Fine, whatever, but please don't cop an attitude about it, okay? It's just picking the scab on my ass over and over.

*(clarity junkie sez grrrrr....)*

All right, now I'm dropping it.

I was not bitching about the definition of a right. I was bitching that, as it concerns our discussion, right and privelege are interchangeable. They are instituted in the same fashion, they serve the same purposes, they have the same moral basis.

Because of this, and as you have shown in the quote above this one. The word right has been thrown around indescriminately in this thread.

From my position, this is very aggrevating, as you will notice there are two sides, and I am arguing against both. One side keeps referring to rights, one side keeps saying they are priveleges, and all I want to say is ability. Therefore semantics are making it extremely difficult to clearly state my position, as I have to abide by different definitions.

I asked this in the abortion thread, just to be a devil's advocate, but I decided it needed its own thread.
Quote:
Should the fetus have a right to keep the mother from abusing drugs or alcohol while she is pregnant?

Yes it should. If the mother is going to have an abortion then I suppose it doesnt matter, but in that case she should jsut have the abortion straight away so its a moot point. If she intends to keep the baby then she should not be able to harm it. and after the point the fetus becomes viable to be born, say 22 weeks or whatever, it should have the same rights as any person, because once it can exist independantly from the mother surely it is a person.

I am pro choice but if youre not going to abort it you have a duty to not hurt it.

You know what, VO, I'm afraid this debate is starting to disintegrate, because we're repeating ourselves and, frankly, you're starting to focus more on so-called "semantics" and terminology and less on substative issues.

No, the fetus is cast into the role of the dog. The fetus has no control, the woman can dispose of it if she likes, but if she is going to keep it, she must show some reasonable level of care for it.
What I'm trying to say is that, if you allow the state to dictate to the woman what a "reasonable level of care" is and take steps to force her to meet that level or punish her for not doing so -- all before any actual harm is done to anyone or anything -- then you would be effectively switching the roles and stripping the woman of all her control over her body/life. If she cannot be trusted as the authority who decides how her pregnancy will go, then how can you stop anti-choicers from claiming, with much more logical force, that she cannot be trusted to decide to abort either?

I say that the proper thing to do is educate women as to the right thing to do and give them the help they need to do it, if they need help. But you cannot force them to make the decision you want them to make. If so, then you are not allowing them to decide at all, are you?

I've been making this point over and over, but you seem completely uninterested in it. Are you so married to the idea of passing laws to restrict women's liberties? Why would you prefer to force women to obey you rather than educate them to agree with you?

I am well aware of the problems of making a woman responsible for the fetus, but fetal alcohol syndrom is a senseless problem that can be dealt with with little intrusion into the mother's life.
What I see here is you saying that you should have the power to pass judgment on the decisions that I make because you think your cause is worthwhile, even though you would deny that power to anti-choicers because you don't agree with their cause. But from my point of view (as a woman), I say you can both sod off. My body = my decisions = my authority.

This is round 2 for this pair of points, btw.

How many laws can you provide that are not based in morality? I am guessing very few.

When you say moralistic, most of the laws you are thinking of are traditionally/religiously/puritanically moral, and I can assure you that I will not support a law for any of those reasons.
Are you unfamiliar with the phrase "legislating morality"? It always refers to laws that are "traditionally/religiously/puritanically moral", such as Prohibition -- and such as the kind of laws you are considering here. What you are talking about is passing a set of laws to force women -- and only women -- to conform to a specific kind of behavior you consider responsible, over and above all the laws that already exist that govern parental responsibilities, negligence, etc.

Once again, nearly all laws are moral obligations. I would not wish to impose my morality on someone, I would wish to call our society to decide that this is a moral imperative and thus make it society's morality. Which is pretty much what our coded (and non-coded) law is.
So in other words, you want your morality to be reflected by the law. But why don't you want to achieve this by educating the public? Why are you talking about passing laws instead of educating without criminalizing otherwise legal behaviors?

No, VO, you may not want to impose your morality on anyone, but if you imposed such laws, that is what you would be doing.

This is unconvincing considering present laws we have that protect people from another's irresponsible action, protect animals from a person's irresponsible actions, and protect the environment from a person's irresponsible actions.
None of the laws that protect animals or the environment would actually force a human to give up control of their own bodies and personal decisions about themselves. I am not forced to change the way I drink or eat for the sake of animals or the environment. I am not told that I am not competent to make decisions about my own body for the sake of animals or the environment. What such laws as you propose would take away from me is far greater than any animal or environmental protection laws.

As I have said, remedial action represents punishing a woman for harming the fetus. Remedial action is the most likely punishment in this situation.
Right, and the person who was harmed will be the one doing the punishing. Why should a woman be punished by having her liberty curtailed before anyone can show that she has actually harmed anyone?

You are precluded from making this argument. There is no way that a newborn or even a toddler can understand and reciprocate any of the rights of personhood. As rights are considered, by YOUR definition, there is no difference between child and fetus.
Excuse me, but I really don't like to be told I'm not allowed to make an argument. Also, your objection doesn't make sense. It does not speak to what I was saying at all, and how in hell do you decide I'm "precluded" from making an argument that I have been making for days without any earlier objection from you? Why all of a sudden am I "precluded" from making it?

Look, rights have been explained to you over and over. The difference between fetuses and children have been explained to you over and over. The reason why one has rights and the other doesn't has been explained and so have the reasons why it should stay that way. Why don't you take a break to read through the thread, think about it, and come back with objections, questions, or -- dare I dream? -- agreements, that are not just repetitions of the same points again?

I was not bitching about the definition of a right. I was bitching that, as it concerns our discussion, right and privelege are interchangeable. They are instituted in the same fashion, they serve the same purposes, they have the same moral basis.
Nope, you're wrong about that. Go look it up.

Because of this, and as you have shown in the quote above this one. The word right has been thrown around indescriminately in this thread.
Whatever.

From my position, this is very aggrevating, as you will notice there are two sides, and I am arguing against both.
Maybe that's why this debate is not progressing.

One side keeps referring to rights, one side keeps saying they are priveleges, and all I want to say is ability. Therefore semantics are making it extremely difficult to clearly state my position, as I have to abide by different definitions.
Another argument in favor of you taking some time to think it through some more.

What I'm trying to say is that, if you allow the state to dictate to the woman what a "reasonable level of care" is and take steps to force her to meet that level or punish her for not doing so -- all before any actual harm is done to anyone or anything -- then you would be effectively switching the roles and stripping the woman of all her control over her body/life. If she cannot be trusted as the authority who decides how her pregnancy will go, then how can you stop anti-choicers from claiming, with much more logical force, that she cannot be trusted to decide to abort either?

This is not a black and white situation here. You want to say that by restricting one behavior, you restrict all behaviors. She still chooses how her body is used, but that authority comes with responsibilities. Enforcing responsibility does not remove authority.

I say that the proper thing to do is educate women as to the right thing to do and give them the help they need to do it, if they need help. But you cannot force them to make the decision you want them to make. If so, then you are not allowing them to decide at all, are you?

I've been making this point over and over, but you seem completely uninterested in it. Are you so married to the idea of passing laws to restrict women's liberties? Why would you prefer to force women to obey you rather than educate them to agree with you?

I support education and enforcement. I would wager that there are very few pregnant women who aren't aware that alcohol and drugs carry a huge risk of deformaties in the child.

And no, I do not want them to decide whether drinking alcohol is a good decision while they are pregnant. No responsible would even consider that a decision. The only women affected are the ones who would be horribly negligent to the responsibilities they took on by carrying the pregnancy to fruition.

What I see here is you saying that you should have the power to pass judgment on the decisions that I make because you think your cause is worthwhile, even though you would deny that power to anti-choicers because you don't agree with their cause. But from my point of view (as a woman), I say you can both sod off. My body = my decisions = my authority.

This is round 2 for this pair of points, btw.

So is my body = my decisions = my authority, I can beat a dog, correct? I mean obviously a non-person has no legal privelege that can counter my authority over my own fist.

That is the same response I posted to this the first time.

And yes, I agree with my cause and don't agree with anti-abortionists' cause. That is the way people usually back and oppose laws.

Are you unfamiliar with the phrase "legislating morality"? It always refers to laws that are "traditionally/religiously/puritanically moral", such as Prohibition -- and such as the kind of laws you are considering here. What you are talking about is passing a set of laws to force women -- and only women -- to conform to a specific kind of behavior you consider responsible, over and above all the laws that already exist that govern parental responsibilities, negligence, etc.

What laws are there that define responsibilities and negligence that apply to the fetus?

And I am not saying that women can't drink, I am saying people who carry a fetus cannot drink, the fact that only women can carry a fetus is coincidental. This is not an attempt to legislate against women. It rather annoys me that you would imply that.

Furthermore, I am not even sure how you characterize my argument as being based on tradition/religion/puritan beliefs, when I have not only not expressed those beliefs here, but have often taken up a very rigid stance against those beliefs in the past.

And answer the question: How many laws can you name that aren't based on morality?

So in other words, you want your morality to be reflected by the law. But why don't you want to achieve this by educating the public? Why are you talking about passing laws instead of educating without criminalizing otherwise legal behaviors?

Because the effects of drinking and abusing drugs on a fetus are already common knowledge. There is not much more education can do.

No, VO, you may not want to impose your morality on anyone, but if you imposed such laws, that is what you would be doing.

In a democracy, society imposes its own morality on society, that is the way laws work.

None of the laws that protect animals or the environment would actually force a human to give up control of their own bodies and personal decisions about themselves. I am not forced to change the way I drink or eat for the sake of animals or the environment. I am not told that I am not competent to make decisions about my own body for the sake of animals or the environment. What such laws as you propose would take away from me is far greater than any animal or environmental protection laws.

Maybe you value drugs and alcohol more than I do.

If you could not give up either of them for 9 months for something as important as a pregnancy, maybe you need to get some counseling.

But seriously, could you think of anyone you know who wouldn't give up alcohol and drugs if they were truly interested in raising a child? I don't suspect this law would change to many behaviors.

Right, and the person who was harmed will be the one doing the punishing. Why should a woman be punished by having her liberty curtailed before anyone can show that she has actually harmed anyone?

My point is that supporting remedial action placed on the mother is no different from what I am stating. You cannot support after the fact punishment on the mother while supporting her right to control her body during the pregnancy.

Excuse me, but I really don't like to be told I'm not allowed to make an argument. Also, your objection doesn't make sense. It does not speak to what I was saying at all, and how in hell do you decide I'm "precluded" from making an argument that I have been making for days without any earlier objection from you? Why all of a sudden am I "precluded" from making it?

1. Rights are required to be reciprocal obligations between people.
2. For reciprocal obligations to occur between people, both parties must understand said rights.
3. Small children cannot understand these rights.
4. Therefore, Small children cannot be a part of reciprocal obligations.
5. Therefore, Small children have no rights.

Unless you can find a hole in this logic, I will proceed under the assumption that children have no more ability to possess rights than the fetus, and as such birth is no qualification for rights.

Therefore, you are hindered by our established definition of a right to make that argument.

Look, rights have been explained to you over and over. The difference between fetuses and children have been explained to you over and over. The reason why one has rights and the other doesn't has been explained and so have the reasons why it should stay that way. Why don't you take a break to read through the thread, think about it, and come back with objections, questions, or -- dare I dream? -- agreements, that are not just repetitions of the same points again?

If you will read back, I asked Alien Born about small children after he presented the same definition of rights as you, the same definition that I am also presently going by and he said this.

How about rights for mental deficients and children?

From my perspective they do not have rights, but we do have obligations toward them. the same way as we have obligations toward animals and the ecosystem.

So you are the only individual saying that small children have rights, and the only backing for this is that they are born, which as I have shown above is not sufficient for the establishment of rights.

Nope, you're wrong about that. Go look it up.

How about you give the difference between a right and a privelege, other than rights are applied universally. Perhaps you can show how the government enforces them differently, how they are codified into law differently, how they effect us differently.

Maybe that's why this debate is not progressing.

Contrary to the popular belief of NSers, sides must not be drawn for there to be meaningful discussion. Quite often those sides are the leading hindrance to meaningful discussion.

And answer the question: How many laws can you name that aren't based on morality?

Each and every law that gives priveleges to a limited few. Try the 1689 English Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Bill_of_Rights) for a prime example.

Any law that requires a person to act in a way that may be inimicable to his well being. Conscription laws.

The British law that requires London taxi drivers to carry a bale of hay.

All laws that prescribe the use of drugs by individuals

Should I continue? In fact the vast majority of our modern laws are not derived from morality but from particular interest of either individuals or groups.

I'm sorry, but this is just a typical anti-choice pseudo-argument.


In other words, this "all-too-common" situation undermines the blanket condemnations of choice that anti-choicers like to indulge in, so you would like to pretend it doesn't exist in order to avoid muddying up propagandistic rhetoric like this:


Typical mischaracterization of abortion as a frivolous, spur of the moment indulgence of self-centered women who just don't care about others. A classic anti-choice myth that ignores the facts of who gets abortions and why.


Another favorite cliche, but utterly meaningless because they are not comparable situations -- but it does allow the anti-choicer to paint abortion as a malicious act.


Ah, the bread and butter of anti-choice -- pregnancy as punishment for being a slut.

You know what? This is not the thread for this nonsense. Take it over to the abortion thread this was spun off from, and we'll meet you there. Thanks.
Did you think this through or did you just try to make me look dumb because I disagreed with you? Seriously, are you going to debate properly? You do not do this. You take my entire post apart and tell me exactly why you disagree. This "anti-choice" cliche just seems to be a quick excuse for disagreement.

1. How is this a psuedo-argument? Is it not a real argument because I disagree with you? Because you have a real answer, but am not telling me? What?

2. All too common a blanket term used to condemn a choice? wtf? Please clarify. How is this an attempt to condemn a choice? Your medieval cathedral of an argument has no buttress of clarification to support itself. It's self-implosion is imminent.

3. Again, what? I'm lost. Can you please give me an actual explanation for your attempted rebuttal? Can you please tell me where I went wrong? This isn't a debate at all, is it? You made an argument, but made no attempt to support it.

Here's my stance: If a woman CHOOSES to get pregnant, then guess what? She's pregnant. I believe that she should be more responsible. Since we know that absolute control over one's body is a fallacy(the ban on cocaine usage keeps this right from being absolute. Don't blame me. Blame Mr. Dictionary), this issue is about as clear as a brick wall.

A woman chose to get pregnant. I'm not talking about non-choice, so let's leave accidents, rapes/other forced sex acts, and general stupidity(if you have unprotected sex with someone and you made no attempt at birth control(if you're the girl), then you are going to get pregnant. Reproduction doesn't discriminate against any fertile female) out of this. Those are what are known as non-choices. That's just to keep you from bringing those into this argument when they aren't being discussed.

Anyway, she chose to get pregnant. She should have to face the consequences. Alcohol? Maybe just enough to maintain a healthy heart. Not more than that, though. Tobacco? Nope. That's just giving money to corporations who obviously couldn't care less if you die or not. Plus, quitting is the first step towards a rewarding life where you can run without literally suffocating to death. Illegal drug use? Why would pregnancy make it suddenly legal? Punching yourself in the gut? Once the fetus leaves your body one way or the other, get out of the gene pool. Hurting yourself is not considered healthy and could be a sign of mental disorders.

She chose to get pregnant. Huess what? She made a choice. Unless she does something that ends it, like abortian or any other form of much-needed legal population control(face it. Our planet can only support so many), she should face the consequences of her choice. Alcohol? tobbaco? Two things that can harm the product of a single night's work. These actions will most likely cause harm to a seperate person(the fetus won't be in her forever, you know), even if that person isn't being harmed at the moment, or seperate at the moment.

You're right. It's her body. She chose to get it pregnant. She made a choice and now she should either abort the pregnancy or face the fact that she just changed her life forever. It's called living with your choice. Everyone's doing it. That man chose to get drunk. Now he's in a wheel chair because his drunkenness caused him to do something incredibly stupid. He's living with his choice. That lady wasn't looking where she was going and got a cut on her arm. It got infected and now she's missing an arm. She's living with her choice. See my point? No sexist plot. No attempt at forcing women into slavery. No genocidal rampage. Just not exempting anyone from this fact of life that affects everyone. I know, it might seem foreign to you. It might seem sexist that I think that a woman has to have a certain amount of responsibility for her actions. Paralyzes and pregnancy don't discriminate, even though one really does cripple you and the other is an ironic combo of joy and intence agony.

Education won't eradicate this problem. It didn't really work for cigarette smoking, drunk driving, or not being able to do math. No matter how hard you try, you're always going to find dumbass because sudden mental retardation does not discriminate based on race, religion, gender, education level, etc.

Each and every law that gives priveleges to a limited few. Try the 1689 English Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Bill_of_Rights) for a prime example.

Any law that requires a person to act in a way that may be inimicable to his well being. Conscription laws.

The British law that requires London taxi drivers to carry a bale of hay.

All laws that prescribe the use of drugs by individuals

Should I continue? In fact the vast majority of our modern laws are not derived from morality but from particular interest of either individuals or groups.

Are we claiming objective morality in law making here?

EDIT: And out of curiosity, what is the deal with the taxi drivers and the hay?

Avika

Your points would work better if you did not sidetrack into attacks on the tobacco industry etc. These are irrelevant to the discussion here and tend to characterise you as being a particular type of "You must do as I think is best, because I know what is good and what is bad for you" character.

If your point is that the woman chose to get pregnant and has thus voluntarily relegated her rights to use and abuse her body to the right of the fetus to not be abused, which is what it seems to be, you will have to explain how this foetus comes to have any rights whatsoever.

My spleen does not have rights independent of mine, nor does the excess fat that I have developped. I chose to develop the fat (by eating too much), does this mean that I have to defer my rights to it?

As I do not see young children as bearers of rights (they are not capable of reciprocating) I certainly do not see a foetus as a bearer of rights.

Hey Avika,

I have a question for you:

Do women choose to get pregnant?

Muravyets, this is what is known as a proper rebuttal. This user posted WHY he/she feels the way he/she does. This user actually decided to prove that he/she thought it through.

Hey Avika,

I have a question for you:

Do women choose to get pregnant?
For most, yes. I mean, she chose to engage in an unprotected sexual behavior. Babies don't just magically appear in women. It takes some sperm to get things going. It's safe to assume that most women know the concept of "humping is the first step in pregnancy". I mean, it's not like that gender is retarded or anything. They likely know what the hell is going on.

Of course, like men, women are human and humans do tend to be stupid.

For most, yes. I mean, she chose to engage in an unprotected sexual behavior. Babies don't just magically appear in women. It takes some sperm to get things going. It's safe to assume that most women know the concept of "humping is the first step in pregnancy". I mean, it's not like that gender is retarded or anything. They likely know what the hell is going on.

Of course, like men, women are human and humans do tend to be stupid.

I was just giving you a hard time, since you started every paragraph off by saying that women choose to get pregnant.

I would say that women choose to have sex, and pregnancy is a possible consequence. So there is no particular choice of getting pregnant.

I know women who have tried to choose to be pregnant, and found that even that choice combined with sex was insufficient.

Are we claiming objective morality in law making here?

EDIT: And out of curiosity, what is the deal with the taxi drivers and the hay?

Objective morality! What is that?! Some objectivist position or the view that there are moral values in the world and we just have to recognise them.

For me morality is based on pleasure and utility (Hume again) An action is virtuous if it provides pleasure or utility or both to either me or to others. An action is a vice if it is disagreeable or obstructive or both to either me or to others.

Law making is disconnected from morality in most cases. That is all I am claiming.

Amendment No. 297B has its inspiration from a speech to the British Chamber of Commerce on 3rd June by the Secretary of State. He said that he might be sunsetting some future regulations. I remember a story that London taxi drivers were, at one time, required to keep a bale of hay in the backs of their cabs for their horses, because someone forgot to repeal the order when motor cabs replaced the Hansom cab.
source (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990616/text/90616-29.htm)

For those that don't know, Hansard is the record of what is said in the British government. This particular record is for the House of Lords for the 16th June 1999 and refers to an obscure law that requires all taxis in London to carry a bale of hay. This law is still, as far as I can establish, on the statute book in the UK. (It is not enforced.)

Objective morality! What is that?! Some objectivist position or the view that there are moral values in the world and we just have to recognise them.

It appeared that you seemed prepared to define what constituted morality in lawmaking.

What are the basis for conscription laws, why I are they widely supported within this American democracy?

For me morality is based on pleasure and utility (Hume again) An action is virtuous if it provides pleasure or utility or both to either me or to others. An action is a vice if it is disagreeable or obstructive or both to either me or to others.

Law making is disconnected from morality in most cases. That is all I am claiming.

It seems to me that most laws are meant to enforce virtuous behavior and outlaw vices, even if that does work to the benefit of some over others.

This is not a black and white situation here. You want to say that by restricting one behavior, you restrict all behaviors. She still chooses how her body is used, but that authority comes with responsibilities. Enforcing responsibility does not remove authority.



I support education and enforcement. I would wager that there are very few pregnant women who aren't aware that alcohol and drugs carry a huge risk of deformaties in the child.

And no, I do not want them to decide whether drinking alcohol is a good decision while they are pregnant. No responsible would even consider that a decision. The only women affected are the ones who would be horribly negligent to the responsibilities they took on by carrying the pregnancy to fruition.



So is my body = my decisions = my authority, I can beat a dog, correct? I mean obviously a non-person has no legal privelege that can counter my authority over my own fist.

That is the same response I posted to this the first time.

And yes, I agree with my cause and don't agree with anti-abortionists' cause. That is the way people usually back and oppose laws.



What laws are there that define responsibilities and negligence that apply to the fetus?

And I am not saying that women can't drink, I am saying people who carry a fetus cannot drink, the fact that only women can carry a fetus is coincidental. This is not an attempt to legislate against women. It rather annoys me that you would imply that.

Furthermore, I am not even sure how you characterize my argument as being based on tradition/religion/puritan beliefs, when I have not only not expressed those beliefs here, but have often taken up a very rigid stance against those beliefs in the past.

And answer the question: How many laws can you name that aren't based on morality?



Because the effects of drinking and abusing drugs on a fetus are already common knowledge. There is not much more education can do.



In a democracy, society imposes its own morality on society, that is the way laws work.



Maybe you value drugs and alcohol more than I do.

If you could not give up either of them for 9 months for something as important as a pregnancy, maybe you need to get some counseling.

But seriously, could you think of anyone you know who wouldn't give up alcohol and drugs if they were truly interested in raising a child? I don't suspect this law would change to many behaviors.



My point is that supporting remedial action placed on the mother is no different from what I am stating. You cannot support after the fact punishment on the mother while supporting her right to control her body during the pregnancy.



1. Rights are required to be reciprocal obligations between people.
2. For reciprocal obligations to occur between people, both parties must understand said rights.
3. Small children cannot understand these rights.
4. Therefore, Small children cannot be a part of reciprocal obligations.
5. Therefore, Small children have no rights.

Unless you can find a hole in this logic, I will proceed under the assumption that children have no more ability to possess rights than the fetus, and as such birth is no qualification for rights.

Therefore, you are hindered by our established definition of a right to make that argument.



If you will read back, I asked Alien Born about small children after he presented the same definition of rights as you, the same definition that I am also presently going by and he said this.





So you are the only individual saying that small children have rights, and the only backing for this is that they are born, which as I have shown above is not sufficient for the establishment of rights.



How about you give the difference between a right and a privelege, other than rights are applied universally. Perhaps you can show how the government enforces them differently, how they are codified into law differently, how they effect us differently.



Contrary to the popular belief of NSers, sides must not be drawn for there to be meaningful discussion. Quite often those sides are the leading hindrance to meaningful discussion.
This is like the 3rd or 4th time you have just completely gainsayed everything I've said by virtually repeating the points of yours that I was completely gainsaying by repeating the points that I had made earlier, etc. All the answers you demand from me here, I have given you at least once already in this very thread. Obviously, we are at an impasse and have nothing new to offer each other at this point. I suggest we leave it here and let the issue percolate for a while. Because we are going nowhere.

Oh, and re AB's argument about the rights of children and incompetents -- yeah, that's AB's argument, not mine. I gave you my answer about that earlier in this thread. It is somewhat different from his. You ignored it apparently. I'm tired of dancing round this barn with you. I'm going to dance around Avika's barn for a while now.

It appeared that you seemed prepared to define what constituted morality in lawmaking.

What are the basis for conscription laws, why I are they widely supported within this American democracy?

I see morality as universifiable. If it is morally right for me to A then it is morally right for you, your mother and everyone else to do A.

This seems to have little bearing on legislation. As to what the justification for conscription is - I simply do not have a clue. I find it to be immoral and archaic. There may be people who could justify it on a Hobbsian owed duty to the Leviathan line, but I won't attempt that now.


It seems to me that most laws are meant to enforce virtuous behavior and outlaw vices, even if that does work to the benefit of some over others.

Most laws seem to be to enforce certain behaviours that favour the groups or individuals that are in power. I can think of very few laws that are relavant to vitue in any way.

Anyway. It is past 02:00 here and I am going to sleep as I have a lot of driving to do tomorrow. G'night all.

Oh, and re AB's argument about the rights of children and incompetents -- yeah, that's AB's argument, not mine. I gave you my answer about that earlier in this thread. It is somewhat different from his. You ignored it apparently. I'm tired of dancing round this barn with you. I'm going to dance around Avika's barn for a while now.

I most certainly didn't ignore it:

The fact that it is born, which is the moment it becomes a legal person under the law and is invested with the rights of legal persons under the law.

The designation of "legal person," although misused when applied to artificial constructs like corporations, is not just an arbitrary label. Once a child is born, it is entirely its own person. There is no other individual who is entirely responsible for its continued life, and thus no one who has any right to claim complete control over it. It is an independent presence in the world that can interact with others in the world, is capable of harming/being harmed, benefitting others/receiving benefit, taking from the world/giving to the world. It takes its place in society and as such, it is immediately invested with all human rights and becomes invested with civil rights as it grows and becomes competent to exercise them.

That is the fundamental and inescapable difference between a child and a fetus.

To which I replied:

You are precluded from making this argument. There is no way that a newborn or even a toddler can understand and reciprocate any of the rights of personhood. As rights are considered, by YOUR definition, there is no difference between child and fetus.

And further explained here:

1. Rights are required to be reciprocal obligations between people.
2. For reciprocal obligations to occur between people, both parties must understand said rights.
3. Small children cannot understand these rights.
4. Therefore, Small children cannot be a part of reciprocal obligations.
5. Therefore, Small children have no rights.

Unless you can find a hole in this logic, I will proceed under the assumption that children have no more ability to possess rights than the fetus, and as such birth is no qualification for rights.

Therefore, you are hindered by our established definition of a right to make that argument.

I see morality as universifiable. If it is morally right for me to A then it is morally right for you, your mother and everyone else to do A.

This seems to have little bearing on legislation. As to what the justification for conscription is - I simply do not have a clue. I find it to be immoral and archaic. There may be people who could justify it on a Hobbsian owed duty to the Leviathan line, but I won't attempt that now.

This is what I meant by my "objective morality" statement. You are taking your idea of morality and saying that laws that don't reflect that do not have moral backing.

Most laws seem to be to enforce certain behaviours that favour the groups or individuals that are in power. I can think of very few laws that are relavant to vitue in any way.

I will not argue that laws reflect the wants of those with power, but I would say that laws reflect the morality of those with power.

But I will back off of my original statement that very few laws are not morally backed, as you seem to support laws with their basis in morality. Gotta pick your battles, ya know.

Did you think this through or did you just try to make me look dumb because I disagreed with you? Seriously, are you going to debate properly? You do not do this. You take my entire post apart and tell me exactly why you disagree. This "anti-choice" cliche just seems to be a quick excuse for disagreement.
It's called a critique. I critiqued your post as being nothing but a list of classic anti-choice movement talking points. I also mentioned it was off the topic of this thread. It still is.

1. How is this a psuedo-argument? Is it not a real argument because I disagree with you? Because you have a real answer, but am not telling me? What?
It's a pseudo-argument because it is nothing but a list of official talking points. Do we know from this what you think? No, we know from this what various leaders of the anti-choice movement disseminate as speech slogans.

2. All too common a blanket term used to condemn a choice? wtf? Please clarify. How is this an attempt to condemn a choice? Your medieval cathedral of an argument has no buttress of clarification to support itself. It's self-implosion is imminent.
I'm sorry, I tend to use complex sentences. I was referring to your neat sidestepping of an exception to your anti-choice propaganda -- an exception so common as to not be an exception at all.

3. Again, what? I'm lost. Can you please give me an actual explanation for your attempted rebuttal? Can you please tell me where I went wrong? This isn't a debate at all, is it? You made an argument, but made no attempt to support it.
I was neither rebutting nor presenting an argument. I was critiquing your comments and declaring them (A) standardized talking points and (B) off the topic of the thread.

Here's my stance: If a woman CHOOSES to get pregnant, then guess what? She's pregnant. I believe that she should be more responsible. Since we know that absolute control over one's body is a fallacy(the ban on cocaine usage keeps this right from being absolute. Don't blame me. Blame Mr. Dictionary), this issue is about as clear as a brick wall.

A woman chose to get pregnant. I'm not talking about non-choice, so let's leave accidents, rapes/other forced sex acts, and general stupidity(if you have unprotected sex with someone and you made no attempt at birth control(if you're the girl), then you are going to get pregnant. Reproduction doesn't discriminate against any fertile female) out of this. Those are what are known as non-choices. That's just to keep you from bringing those into this argument when they aren't being discussed.

Anyway, she chose to get pregnant. She should have to face the consequences. Alcohol? Maybe just enough to maintain a healthy heart. Not more than that, though. Tobacco? Nope. That's just giving money to corporations who obviously couldn't care less if you die or not. Plus, quitting is the first step towards a rewarding life where you can run without literally suffocating to death. Illegal drug use? Why would pregnancy make it suddenly legal? Punching yourself in the gut? Once the fetus leaves your body one way or the other, get out of the gene pool. Hurting yourself is not considered healthy and could be a sign of mental disorders.

She chose to get pregnant. Huess what? She made a choice. Unless she does something that ends it, like abortian or any other form of much-needed legal population control(face it. Our planet can only support so many), she should face the consequences of her choice. Alcohol? tobbaco? Two things that can harm the product of a single night's work. These actions will most likely cause harm to a seperate person(the fetus won't be in her forever, you know), even if that person isn't being harmed at the moment, or seperate at the moment.

You're right. It's her body. She chose to get it pregnant. She made a choice and now she should either abort the pregnancy or face the fact that she just changed her life forever. It's called living with your choice. Everyone's doing it. That man chose to get drunk. Now he's in a wheel chair because his drunkenness caused him to do something incredibly stupid. He's living with his choice. That lady wasn't looking where she was going and got a cut on her arm. It got infected and now she's missing an arm. She's living with her choice. See my point? No sexist plot. No attempt at forcing women into slavery. No genocidal rampage. Just not exempting anyone from this fact of life that affects everyone. I know, it might seem foreign to you. It might seem sexist that I think that a woman has to have a certain amount of responsibility for her actions. Paralyzes and pregnancy don't discriminate, even though one really does cripple you and the other is an ironic combo of joy and intence agony.

Education won't eradicate this problem. It didn't really work for cigarette smoking, drunk driving, or not being able to do math. No matter how hard you try, you're always going to find dumbass because sudden mental retardation does not discriminate based on race, religion, gender, education level, etc.
So all you're really saying is the stupid slut should be controlled by law if she doesn't do what you want her to do. I disagree.

I have already stated my position in detail earlier in this thread. Here it is in a nutshell: The only way to prove that harm has been done is to wait until the birth. If the baby is born damaged, the baby will then have the right to seek redress (i.e. to have an adult seek redress on its behalf). There is absolutely no reason to take away my civil liberties or criminalize behavior for me that would be legal for everyone else, before anything wrong occurs, just because you want to control my decisions.

Muravyets, this is what is known as a proper rebuttal. This user posted WHY he/she feels the way he/she does. This user actually decided to prove that he/she thought it through.
Do you mean this one:
Originally posted by VO2
Hey Avika,

I have a question for you:

Do women choose to get pregnant?

Or this one:
Originally posted by VO2
I was just giving you a hard time, since you started every paragraph off by saying that women choose to get pregnant.


Please read the thread if you want to know why I think the things I'm posting here, since I have already explained myself quite fully. I see no reason to repeat my arguments in their entirety for every single poster in the same thread.

I think I snuck a post in there, cause I hope he wasn't commending my rebuttal ability.

I most certainly didn't ignore it:
Originally Posted by Muravyets on Why Children are Protected After Birth
The fact that it is born, which is the moment it becomes a legal person under the law and is invested with the rights of legal persons under the law.

The designation of "legal person," although misused when applied to artificial constructs like corporations, is not just an arbitrary label. Once a child is born, it is entirely its own person. There is no other individual who is entirely responsible for its continued life, and thus no one who has any right to claim complete control over it. It is an independent presence in the world that can interact with others in the world, is capable of harming/being harmed, benefitting others/receiving benefit, taking from the world/giving to the world. It takes its place in society and as such, it is immediately invested with all human rights and becomes invested with civil rights as it grows and becomes competent to exercise them.

That is the fundamental and inescapable difference between a child and a fetus.

To which I replied:
Originally Posted by VO
You are precluded from making this argument. There is no way that a newborn or even a toddler can understand and reciprocate any of the rights of personhood. As rights are considered, by YOUR definition, there is no difference between child and fetus.

And further explained here:
Originally Posted by VO
1. Rights are required to be reciprocal obligations between people.
2. For reciprocal obligations to occur between people, both parties must understand said rights.
3. Small children cannot understand these rights.
4. Therefore, Small children cannot be a part of reciprocal obligations.
5. Therefore, Small children have no rights.

Unless you can find a hole in this logic, I will proceed under the assumption that children have no more ability to possess rights than the fetus, and as such birth is no qualification for rights.

Therefore, you are hindered by our established definition of a right to make that argument.
I can find this hole in it: It has nothing to do with my argument and therefore is not an answer to it. You are still trying to apply AB's argument to mine. It doesn't fit. He said small children don't have rights. I did not say that. I said small children are immediately invested with basic human rights at birth and gain civil rights as they become competent to exercise them. This is because they are born people, which makes them legal persons. So obviously, small children do have rights. Fetuses do not have rights because they are not born, therfore, they are not legal persons. (This is the third time I've typed this, I think. I don't want to do it again.)

I can find another hole in it, too: You try to argue that small children can't understand rights, so can't reciprocate them, so can't have them. But here's your flaw. Do you understand all of your rights? If you had to go to court, would you represent yourself or hire a lawyer? A child, even an infant, who needs to exercise a right against someone else, will be represented by a legal guardian. If that cannot be the parents, it will be a person appointed by the court to speak on its behalf. Just the way incompetent people have representatives to exercise their rights for them by proxy.

It happens countless times that small children have legal representation appointed for them. It is so common, there is an entire segment of the court devoted exclusively to dealing with the legal rights of small children -- Family Court in the US. There are both civil and criminal divisions. It both protects children and punishes them under the law. I believe many countries have a version of it.

So even though the small child cannot understand the law and its rights under the law, it still has those rights. It is still protected by the law, and it is still obligated to obey the law. I.e., there is reciprocality. The child pays for its rights with obligations. Even if it doesn't know it will have to do so. It will find out if it does the wrong thing.

The fetus cannot be obligated in this way, so there is no such reciprocality for the fetus.

I think I snuck a post in there, cause I hope he wasn't commending my rebuttal ability.
Who knows what he was responding to? His remark didn't match either of your posts to him.

It's called a critique. I critiqued your post as being nothing but a list of classic anti-choice movement talking points. I also mentioned it was off the topic of this thread. It still is.


It's a pseudo-argument because it is nothing but a list of official talking points. Do we know from this what you think? No, we know from this what various leaders of the anti-choice movement disseminate as speech slogans.


I'm sorry, I tend to use complex sentences. I was referring to your neat sidestepping of an exception to your anti-choice propaganda -- an exception so common as to not be an exception at all.


I was neither rebutting nor presenting an argument. I was critiquing your comments and declaring them (A) standardized talking points and (B) off the topic of the thread.


So all you're really saying is the stupid slut should be controlled by law if she doesn't do what you want her to do. I disagree.

I have already stated my position in detail earlier in this thread. Here it is in a nutshell: The only way to prove that harm has been done is to wait until the birth. If the baby is born damaged, the baby will then have the right to seek redress (i.e. to have an adult seek redress on its behalf). There is absolutely no reason to take away my civil liberties or criminalize behavior for me that would be legal for everyone else, before anything wrong occurs, just because you want to control my decisions.
Seen too much anti-abortian posters lately? It seems as though I have failed to convince you that you might have misinterpreted what I have been trying to say. Since I can no longer stand failures to communicate, I think it would be best if I shut up while you try to see where OTHERS are coming from. Okay?;)

I can find this hole in it: It has nothing to do with my argument and therefore is not an answer to it. You are still trying to apply AB's argument to mine. It doesn't fit. He said small children don't have rights. I did not say that. I said small children are immediately invested with basic human rights at birth and gain civil rights as they become competent to exercise them. This is because they are born people, which makes them legal persons. So obviously, small children do have rights. Fetuses do not have rights because they are not born, therfore, they are not legal persons. (This is the third time I've typed this, I think. I don't want to do it again.)

I agree with AB, I disagree with you, and I am trying to point out that if rights must be reciprocal, then small children cannot have rights.

You must either explain why rights don't have to be reciprocal, or you have to accept that small children cannot have rights.

I can find another hole in it, too: You try to argue that small children can't understand rights, so can't reciprocate them, so can't have them. But here's your flaw. Do you understand all of your rights? If you had to go to court, would you represent yourself or hire a lawyer? A child, even an infant, who needs to exercise a right against someone else, will be represented by a legal guardian. If that cannot be the parents, it will be a person appointed by the court to speak on its behalf. Just the way incompetent people have representatives to exercise their rights for them by proxy.

You are confusing "understanding" with "ignorance." I can presumably understand all reciprocal obligations that are given to me, even if I am ignorant of them.

So even though the small child cannot understand the law and its rights under the law, it still has those rights. It is still protected by the law, and it is still obligated to obey the law. I.e., there is reciprocality. The child pays for its rights with obligations. Even if it doesn't know it will have to do so. It will find out if it does the wrong thing.

So you support full punishment of small children if they violate the rights of another? If a 4 year old shoots and kills an adult, the punishment should be the same as if an adult shot and killed a four year old?

The fetus cannot be obligated in this way, so there is no such reciprocality for the fetus.

I am not entirely sure what obligations are imposed upon the child.

We do have the means to screen, in utero, all embryos for known genetic disorders, and we do have the ability to terminate any pregnancy wherin such disorders are found. Whether we should is part of the debate here.

A woman can never be forced or coerced to abort - especially not in the late 2nd or 3rd trimester when these things can actually be detected.


Who cares what was the mechanism that caused the defect, it is there and it was caused in some way that was preventable.

Just about all defects are preventable. We aren't talking about mere "preventable" things here. We are talking about willfully doing something that you know can cause harm. A mother who knows she is pregnant and drinks alcohol, if she is trying to carry to term, is essentially the equivalent of a mother who knowingly puts poison in her child's food, and just hopes the dose isn't high enough to cause health problems.

That can hardly be compared to someone who just happens to carry the cause of a genetic disorder (something most of us probably carry at least one of).

As it happens we have a healthy son, but we carefully monitored the situation and were prepared to abort the foetus if necessary. There is something very different, emotionally and psychologically in having your own child compared to adopting a child. At least for us. I know it is not rational, but it is there.

Maybe it is, but I don't have to respect that. I *definitely* don't respect the idea of getting pregnant with the idea of "If there's something wrong with it, we'll just abort."

There is still always here the assumption that the woman knows she is pregnant.

It isn't an assumption. Anyone trying to prosecute the mother would have to demonstrate that she knew (ie. she had told friends, was seeking prenatal care, etc.)

I could agree that a woman who willfully and knowingly placed her unborn child at risk could be held responsible.

And that is all I am talking about.

This returns back to the point above. I do have a question concerning the claim of ignorance being a valid defence or not. How much duty of care does a woman have in discovering whether a substance is potentially harmful to any unborn child she is carrying. At what point does it become reasonable to say that she did not realise that it was harmful. You mention Snickers, is this likely to be a cause of peanut intolerance, or type I diabetes? I can imagine that it could be. Is the mother to be held responsible if these happen?

Only if she knew it could cause harm. FAS is a well-known syndrome, and its causes are well-known. Women who seek any type of prenatal care will be informed about it (and you'd be hard-pressed to argue that the woman didn't know before such care). If Snickers causes type I diabetes (highly, highly unlikely, btw), it is not known. There is no reason that she, her physician, or anyone else would think that Snickers would cause harm.

Seen too much anti-abortian posters lately? It seems as though I have failed to convince you that you might have misinterpreted what I have been trying to say. Since I can no longer stand failures to communicate, I think it would be best if I shut up while you try to see where OTHERS are coming from. Okay?;)
Cool. I'm getting ready to bow out of this conversation anyway. Real life needs attention for a bit.

I agree with AB, I disagree with you, and I am trying to point out that if rights must be reciprocal, then small children cannot have rights.

You must either explain why rights don't have to be reciprocal, or you have to accept that small children cannot have rights.
Since I disagree with AB on this one point, and since my entire argument is based on the exact opposite take on the issue, what makes you think I'm going to agree to your demand that I have to prove my argument is valid according to a criterion I think is wrong in the first place?

You are confusing "understanding" with "ignorance."
Thank you. I enjoy being told I'm dumb.

I can presumably understand all reciprocal obligations that are given to me, even if I am ignorant of them.
No, you don't have to understand obligations in order to be bound by them. The law only protects children and incompetents from being exploited on the assumption that they can't understand. But just because a person is an adult with a functioning brain, that doesn't mean they're actually smart enough to make good judgments. It's just that the law assumes that above a certain age, you're on your own. So you can be as ignorant as a child and have no understanding of your obligations at all and still be held to them and be punished for not fulfilling them, if the law thinks you're old enough to know better.

So you support full punishment of small children if they violate the rights of another? If a 4 year old shoots and kills an adult, the punishment should be the same as if an adult shot and killed a four year old?
Where did I say any such thing or anything even suggesting it? Have I or have I not said repeatedly in this thread that children become invested in rights as they become competent to use them. Are you not capable of inferring that the same applies to obligations?

I am not entirely sure what obligations are imposed upon the child.
I'm talking about the obligation to obey the rules and not do harm. The older we get, the more we're expected to have learned about the rules, so the more personal freedom we have under them and the greater the punishments if we break them. This is reality. Do I really need to tell you this? How many times have you been in and out of juvie hall without anyone ever explaining this to you? (Obviously, I don't think you've ever been arrested, but come on, VO, you don't know this? You can't even just figure it out with your beloved logic?)

VO, I'm tired of playing three-steps-forward-two-steps-back wth you. And I've got stuff I need to do, so I'm bowing out of this thread. Good luck with it. I hope you figure out whatever it was you were trying to figure out. 'Bye for now.

Thank you. I enjoy being told I'm dumb.

I am not saying that you are dumb. I am saying that you are right that I am not aware of all of the rights and obligations I possess, but I am unaware because of ignorance, not lack of understanding.

No, you don't have to understand obligations in order to be bound by them. The law only protects children and incompetents from being exploited on the assumption that they can't understand. But just because a person is an adult with a functioning brain, that doesn't mean they're actually smart enough to make good judgments. It's just that the law assumes that above a certain age, you're on your own. So you can be as ignorant as a child and have no understanding of your obligations at all and still be held to them and be punished for not fulfilling them, if the law thinks you're old enough to know better.

And the state never considers small children to be old enough to know better, as such they are not given the obligation.

Where did I say any such thing or anything even suggesting it? Have I or have I not said repeatedly in this thread that children become invested in rights as they become competent to use them. Are you not capable of inferring that the same applies to obligations?

No, you have repeatedly said that children are invested with rights when they are born. So do children receive rights and obligations when they are born, or when they become competent?

I'm talking about the obligation to obey the rules and not do harm. The older we get, the more we're expected to have learned about the rules, so the more personal freedom we have under them and the greater the punishments if we break them. This is reality. Do I really need to tell you this? How many times have you been in and out of juvie hall without anyone ever explaining this to you? (Obviously, I don't think you've ever been arrested, but come on, VO, you don't know this? You can't even just figure it out with your beloved logic?)

No, I agree that rights and obligations are extended once the one holding them is capable of understanding them. However, a newborn is no more capable of understanding rights than a fetus is, so birth is not a viable boundary for the extension of rights.

Therefore, there is no reason why those priveleges that are extended to a newborn cannot be extended to a fetus.

And I have been arrested three times. No time in juvee, but I have spent a few nights in jail. Of course, in all three times, they were victimless crimes, and I violated no rights.

VO, I'm tired of playing three-steps-forward-two-steps-back wth you. And I've got stuff I need to do, so I'm bowing out of this thread. Good luck with it. I hope you figure out whatever it was you were trying to figure out. 'Bye for now.

Every post you make, you say this same thing. It seems obvious to me (and I imagine to those bored enough to read this) that it is a defensive mechanism you use whenever you get caught in an untenable argument. Especially one where it is very apparent that you have used contradictory statements.

I don't really want to argue with someone who won't allow discussion to progress for the sake of an obvious mistake.

Also, I have completely overthrown my initial conception of rights for the purpose of this discussion, yet I am being accused of inflexibility and repetitiveness.