I've said it before, but it cannot be repeated enough times. My answer would be:

'A fetus always has human rights. However, no human has the right to use another person's reproductive system against their will, nor to live off another person against their will. A fetus should not be granted special rights simply because it would not survive without the woman's aid.'

Exactly. That's very powerful, yet to-the-point. Anybody can understand that.

Nettle Syrup, that's always my answer, too. The whole "when does life begin?" question always seems like a pointless argument to me, because no matter WHAT you answer, it NEVER leads to, "And therefore the fetus's rights trump the mother's rights." Because no human, no matter what age, gets to use another human's body against his or her will - not their blood, not their organs, nothing. Therefore, a fetus has the same rights as anyone else does.

The laws regarding organ donation should emphasize this above all else - even if the person is brain dead and therefore is never coming back, they still have a legal say in whether their organs can go to other people upon their passing!

alixana - I couldn't disagree more. First off, you're assuming all rights have equal weight. The babies right to life certainly trumps the mother's right to autonomy. Period. And to equate this erroneously to organ donation baffles me. It's more accurate to equate it to conjoined twins. Is it easier to see how no one conjoined twin should have the intrinsic right to order the death of the other for the purpose of autonomy (or any other reason for that matter, except within the gravity of death)? Why? Because the relationship of the two is inseparable... just like with mother and unborn child.

Furthermore, the justice system seems to acknowledge the stickiness of conjoined twins such that it usually takes a court order to make such major decisions. But with abortion, it's much easier. Unfortunately.

Nettle Syrup,
Okay, I am probably going to be accused of being a troll (again), but your statement is too broad.

It is not that "no human has the right to use another person's reproductive system against their will, nor to live off another person against their will."

It is that "no human has the right to use a WOMAN'S reproductive system against HER will." If a woman rapes a man and gets pregnant, he is responsible for the child; if a woman takes a used condom and gets pregnant, the man can be held responsible for the resulting child. In both cases, the child may have the right to live off the father against his will.

Apart from that, your statement is wholly consistent.

-Jut

The babies right to life certainly trumps the mother's right to autonomy. Period.

Are you kidding me? I mean, did you even read the article linked to in the post above?

elephlux, your post (especially your "unfortunately" comment and your assertion that fetus trumps mother) makes me think you're not the choir I'm preaching to, so I don't know if refuting your post even matters, but equating it to organ donation absolutely is not erroneous.

We all get to chose how to use our bodies. Period. No one whose life depends on us giving up use of part of our bodies trumps that autonomy. That includes giving a kidney to someone who has no other matches and will die without that kidney. That includes giving up our uterus and the rest of the whole shebang to a fetus. No law can mandate that people donate blood - we have autonomy over how our body gets used.

It's not a matter of physical touch that I'm talking about, which seems to be the angle you're using. It's one person's heath or life depending on the use of a part of my body. And each person has the right to decide how or if his or her body will be used to sustain other people.

Jut - First, when we're talking about living off of other people in this context, we mean physically living off of their bodies, which makes your comparison invalid. Second, although the things you brought up are troubling, we can all oppose trapping a man into financially supporting a baby by stealing his used condom while also opposing the illegalization of abortion.

On the elephlux/alixana argument, I think elephlux was going for the idea that conjoined twins not only touch but share some organs, blood supply, etc. But in that case, the sharing is two-way, whereas in a woman/fetus case, the fetus is taking from the mother but not giving back, as far as I know (except its waste). The woman is not living off of the fetus.

First let me say I am terrified of a McPain win b/c of their views on contraception and access to safe, legal abortion.

If a women does NOT terminate her pregnancy and has no plans on how to treat the infant's possible health problems once it IS born, what "rights" does a fetus have when the mother chooses (I don't mean, drinks b/c she doesn't know shes pregnant....chooses) to expose it to drugs and alcohol?

Won't what happens in the womb will affect it AFTER it is "human" (and has been borne/is independent of it's mother)?

From what I've seen on this site...the bloggers will choose the rights of even abusive/neglectful parents (that case with Felicia Salazar...don't care why she didn't take her daughter to the hospital; unless Dad was holding a gun to her head or forcibly keeping her in the room, she was lucky to get parole) over children...not simply fetuses. Maybe I haven't been reading here long enough.

Or that "celebratory" thread regarding Regina McKnight; she didn't deserve jail time for homicide, but "celebratory" over an addict and an infant who may have died of other causes, but probably didn't exactly thrive b/c of her mother's problems?

What about all the infants who are affected due to experiences in the womb and will pay for their parents' choices if/when they're brought to term?

middlechild, I think it's impossible to come up with one theory/philosophy of choice that covers every situation. If a woman chooses not to terminate and plans on bringing it into the world, at that point I think the fetus does have the right to be treated well in the mother's womb with an eye to making sure it has the best health possible - because someday when it's OUT of her womb, no longer requiring the use of her body to live, he or she will still be living with the consequences of the mother's alcohol or drug use. I probably take the opposite view of this than some people here, but I don't think it's out of line with my above-stated pro-choice philosophy to demand certain responsibilities once the mother decides, "Yes, I'm having this child."

If a women does NOT terminate her pregnancy and has no plans on how to treat the infant's possible health problems once it IS born, what "rights" does a fetus have when the mother chooses (I don't mean, drinks b/c she doesn't know shes pregnant....chooses) to expose it to drugs and alcohol?

I don't think you're going to find anyone who won't say that a woman who makes the choice to carry a to term, should take responsibility for her health and the health of her child.

However, this can lead to a slippery slope.

I am not about to risk women's bodily autonomy because some women do choose to drink or smoke or do drugs during their pregnancy.

If we start imposing legal maneuvers on pregnant women, I fear how far that will go. Will it stop at women who smoke crack? Will it carry to a woman who decides to have a glass of wine during her third trimester? Will it carry to a woman who doesn't want to have a c-section, even though the child might die? Will it carry to a woman who engaged in "risky" behavior and had a miscarriage before she knew she was pregnant?

I see far too much that could go wrong (especially in regard to our current political climate) with attempts to legislate a woman's behavior due to her reproductive status.

Not to mention...then very idea just seems repugnant to me.

judgesnineteen,
Fair enough. If we are talking about physically living off someone's body.
But, in that case, my criticism of Nettle Syrup was perfectly appropriate; she cloaked her view in gender-neutral language when the issue is not gender-neutral at all.
-Jut

Living off of someone's body or body parts can be gender neutral, because men can give blood and organs. It's not exactly the same as them using your body parts while they're still attached to you and then letting you keep the parts once they're done, but in both cases someone is being kept alive by your body parts.

In the situation of organ donation, I don't think anyone says that it should be required in order to satisfy someone else's right to life. So the question in this argument is who you think is crossing the line over which their rights should be limited by the rights of another - the fetus by living off of the woman, or the woman by actively ending the fetus's life. Both have rights, and both are doing things to protect those rights that involve another being. Which one is more over the line? Which one is more justified? It's a complicated question. Of course, regardless of the answer, there are plenty of other reasons why abortion should be legal.

middlechild commented at October 27, 2008 10:36 PM: "If a women does NOT terminate her pregnancy and has no plans on how to treat the infant's possible health problems once it IS born, what 'rights' does a fetus have when the mother chooses (I don't mean, drinks b/c she doesn't know shes pregnant....chooses) to expose it to drugs and alcohol?"

There's still a chance that pregnant woman or girl could miscarry. If it is born, then she or he is a separate person who's been harmed and deserves compensation, a chance to throw the book at the one who did the harm.

"Won't what happens in the womb will affect it AFTER it is 'human' (and has been borne/is independent of it's mother)?"

At the same time, what happens among drinkers affects the rest of us AFTER one of them puts down her or his empty glass and starts driving drunk. Arresting a pregnant woman who does drugs just in case she gives birth is like arresting someone who drinks alcohol just in case she or he drives a car afterwards.

absynthe and marigold commented at October 28, 2008 8:22 AM: "If we start imposing legal maneuvers on pregnant women, I fear how far that will go."

Indeed. Drunk driving laws penalize people after they're caught actually driving drunk. It's warning the public ahead of time about those penalties, not imposing legal maneuvers on people while they're still drinking alcohol, that encourages people to either not drive after drinking in the first place or stay sober in the first place.