26 Apr 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightMy original post referred to a "non-viable" fetus; please no red herrings.
"C) The difference between the two cases resides in the fact that in the first a woman is doing something to her own body and in the second she's doing something to somebody's else body." No1
Not after the cut-off date for legal abortion ...
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMorally free? Hardly. Legally free? Yes.
Is it your opinion, Professor, that a pregnant woman is morally free to consume any substances she pleases with complete disregard for the implications that behavior has on a fetus that she intends to bear, provided the substances are legal?
If I'm going to believe that abortion should be a legal procedure because a fetus is just a part of a pregnant woman's body then I can make no rules or laws regarding that fetus without violating the woman's bodily integrity. I suppose it would be like forcing an individual to donate a kidney.
TheSkipper
26 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderLet us stipulate that:
My original post referred to a "non-viable" fetus; please no red herrings.
1) Crack use itself is legal.
2) The woman has been legally using crack during the first n weeks of her pregnancy,
where n is the number of weeks during which the fetus is non-viable and after which the fetus is viable.
3) The woman continues to use crack after the nth week until the birth of the child.
Should her crack use in (3) be a crime, given that the child will almost certainly be born into a life of torment as a crack addict?
26 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KneverKnightI've never heard of the Surgeon General issuing a warning against fathering children while using cigarettes or alcohol. I have seen warnings on most packages, however, that pregnant women should avoid them.
Is smoking and drinking harmful to a man's sperm in a way that would tend to be harmful to any baby sired by this man? If "yes" should the man be prevented from siring children?
Under the views put forth by no1, even if in fact the medical community has failed to observe that male consumption does indeed have deleterious effects on offspring, the man should still not be held criminally liable for siring offspring while using drugs, as there is no viable fetus being harmed.
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIn a manner of speaking I suppose it has. Once it is no longer a fetus and becomes a viable human being it will have the incredible disadvantage of being addicted to crack, among God knows what other complications.
Has the child suffered an injustice?
This is not to say that anything can be done about the injustice, however. We cannot convict the mother of abuse for using crack while pregnant any more than we can convict a mother for bringing a pregnancy to term without means to support a child. Both children will be born with disadvantages and that is regretable, but we cannot do anything about it without infringing upon the mother's bodily integrity.
TheSkipper
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by TheSkipperJust to clarify, do you think the mother should be allowed to use legal crack throughout the entire term of the pregnancy, or only through some n weeks of the fetus's non-viability?
Once it is no longer a fetus and becomes a viable human being it will have the incredible disadvantage of being addicted to crack, among God knows what other complications.
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAgreed. The mother should, legally, be allowed use of crack until the fetus is viable.
Just to clarify, do you think the mother should be allowed to use legal crack throughout the entire term of the pregnancy, or only through some n weeks of the fetus's non-viability?
After that the mother could be charged with abuse, reckless endangerment...whatever.
TheSkipper
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo, back to the point about enforcing non-consumption *after* the point where the State cuts off legal abortion, since it will be the State which will press charges, what happens before is nobody else's business ...
I've never heard of the Surgeon General issuing a warning against fathering children while using cigarettes or alcohol. I have seen warnings on most packages, however, that pregnant women should avoid them.
Under the views put forth by no1, even if in fact the medical community has failed to observe that male consumption does indeed have deleter ...[text shortened]... minally liable for siring offspring while using drugs, as there is no viable fetus being harmed.
Just thinking out loud here.
26 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe legality or non-legality of crack use has no bearing on my argument. I would say that morally 3) could be made a crime, although I would not favor it for a variety of practical reasons i.e. enforcement difficulties, proof difficulties, who's going to take care of the infant, etc. etc.
Let us stipulate that:
1) Crack use itself is legal.
2) The woman has been legally using crack during the first n weeks of her pregnancy,
where n is the number of weeks during which the fetus is non-viable and after which the fetus is viable.
3) The woman continues to use crack after the nth week until the birth of the child.
Should her cr ...[text shortened]... me, given that the child will almost certainly be born into a life of torment as a crack addict?
26 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderVery well. It looks like we are starting to reach some sort of consensus among people who don't believe that non-viable fetuses are entities with rights.
The legality or non-legality of crack use has no bearing on my argument. I would say that morally 3) could be made a crime, although I would not favor it for a variety of practical reasons i.e. enforcement difficulties, proof difficulties, who's going to take care of the infant, etc. etc.
Now for those who do think such fetuses are persons with rights. What say you all? Why so silent on this matter?