Another Abortion Thread

[keltzkroz]

Hi everyone! This topic came up in the Abortion/parental fairness thread. We have gone off topic so I'm starting this one.

The question seems to be pretty simple, or perhaps not so simple. IF the fetus is a person, is abortion ok?

[darthmix]

Except that the fetus is a person, I would argue. It doesn't have full human rights, though, just as slaves didn't have full human rights. However, it deserves full human rights, just as slaves always deserved full human rights.

This analogy comes into picture only if we accept feutus is a person.Without that issue being settled this analogy isnt valid.

Yeah, but this thread is about the question "IF the fetus is a person, is abortion ok?" For the purposes of this debate, we're accepting that the fetus is a person.

The question then becomes whether the woman has any moral obligation to this other person. If she does, we can argue that she must carry it to term, whether she wants to or not.

But there is at least one scenario - rape - in which the fetus comes into existence against the woman's will and by no fault of her own. In that case, it's pretty hard to argue that she has any obligation to it, and it seems clear that she'd be morally justified in getting an abortion - even if we accept that the fetus is a separate, morally autonomous person.

[sin_is_fun]

The question then becomes whether the woman has any moral obligation to this other person. If she does, we can argue that she must carry it to term, whether she wants to or not.

How does moral obligation exist here?Moral obligation exists only when at the time the act is commited the victim exists.This is not true here.Why should the woman have moral obligation towards a person(assuming feutus is a person) who was not existing at the time of the act?

For any contractual relation to come into existence,the two parties must exist at the time of the said act occuring.But the child doesnt exist at the time of sex.So moral obligation occours.

But there is at least one scenario - rape - in which the fetus comes into existence against the woman's will and by no fault of her own. In that case, it's pretty hard to argue that she has any obligation to it, and it seems clear that she'd be morally justified in getting an abortion - even if we accept that the fetus is a separate, morally autonomous person.

you can include teenage girls who are under the age of entering into business contracts also in this category.But it doesnt matter how the child comes into existence.It doesnt have a right to exist on its own.Its mother takes that decision.

[darthmix]

Well, I think jerickson is arguing - with some merit - that if the fetus is living off the woman's body as a result of her actions, which she engaged in of her own free will, then she has a moral obligation to sacrifice some of herself to keep the fetus alive. The fetus - which we're assuming is a person - is an innocent, brought into the mother's body not by its own volition but by the conscious act of the woman herself. For that reason, she bares some responsibility for its situation.

I don't think it's necessary for the person to exist at the time of the act for there to be responsibility, since the person's existence is the thing the woman's actions caused.

[sin_is_fun]

Well, I think jerickson is arguing - with some merit - that if the fetus is living off the woman's body as a result of her actions, which she engaged in of her own free will, then she has a moral obligation to sacrifice some of herself to keep the fetus alive.

If this is the case then all just born babies can file a case against their father and mother for smoking and using drugs before the child was conceived and thus causing birth defects to the child.

Every baby which has a birth defect can file a civil suit against its parents for smoking,using drugs during pregnancy,before pregnancy and so on.Will any court accept this argument?

Moral argument doesnt arise if the other person was not even born when the act was commited.That too here the act is perfectly legal.No moral obligation of any sort arises here.

The fetus - which we're assuming is a person - is an innocent, brought into the mother's body not by its own volition but by the conscious act of the woman herself. For that reason, she bares some responsibility for its situation.

But the feutus did not exist.Can you show me any parallel in law for this argument?Law of contracts say that to create contractual obligation the following conditions should be fulfilled.

1.There must be an offer and acceptance.
2.There must be a legal consideration
3.Both parties should be competent adults

None of these conditions are satisfied here.There is no offer,no acceptance,no agreement between both parties.In fact the child doesnt even come into existence.Further if the girl is a minor she has no legal responsibility of any sorts.The mother herself is a child.What legal obligations will you impose on a child?

If a 14 year old girl causes accidental loss of property to a person will the law make her reimburse the money?No.She is not responsible for her acts.That is law.

I don't think it's necessary for the person to exist at the time of the act for there to be responsibility, since the person's existence is the thing the woman's actions caused.

1.The woman did a legal act
2.The baby was not there during the time the act was commited.
3.Hence she isnt responsible.

can you show me one single instance in law where one party is made to compensate annother unborn party for commiting a legal act?

[darthmix]

If this is the case then all just born babies can file a case against their father and mother for smoking and using drugs before the child was conceived and thus causing birth defects to the child.

Every baby which has a birth defect can file a civil suit against its parents for smoking,using drugs during pregnancy,before pregnancy and so on.Will any court accept this argument?

I've read of a Michigan case from 1980, Grodin vs. Grodin, in which a court ruled the child could sue the mother for taking tetracycline during pregnancy, resulting in various side effects to the child later in life. And there was that criminal case in South Carolina, McKnight v. South Carolina, in which the court convicted Regina McKnight of murder for taking drugs while pregnant and causing her baby to be stillborn. This is a disturbing trend, but don't think it can't happen.

The fetus - which we're assuming is a person - is an innocent, brought into the mother's body not by its own volition but by the conscious act of the woman herself. For that reason, she bares some responsibility for its situation.

But the feutus did not exist.Can you show me any parallel in law for this argument?Law of contracts say that to create contractual obligation the following conditions should be fulfilled.

1.There must be an offer and acceptance.
2.There must be a legal consideration
3.Both parties should be competent adults

None of these conditions are satisfied here.There is no offer,no acceptance,no agreement between both parties.In fact the child doesnt even come into existence.

The legal parallel that comes to mind is the obvious one: childbirth. Remember that if you believe human life - with all the inalienable rights that comes with it - begins and conception, the critical moral moment has to be moved forward nine months.

Right now, the act of giving birth to a child and bringing it into the world results in the responsibility for the baby being assigned to the parents. If you have a baby, you're legally obligated to care for it or otherwise see to its well-being by putting it up for adoption - you can't just chuck it into the dumpster and let it die. This responsibility exists because the baby has needs, as a consequence of its existence, and its existence was brought about by the conscious acts of the parents. No offer was ever made to the baby, but our society has decided that the contract is implied by the parents' actions which led to it. And the parents are not guilty of any crime. Their actions were legal. But this does not release them from their responsibility to their child.

If you argue that life begins at childbirth, then the act of giving birth - at the beginning of which, the person does not exist - is an act which creates a legal responsibility, because it leads to the existence of the person. If you believe life begins at conception, then the same argument applies nine months earlier - assuming the sex was consensual.

Further if the girl is a minor she has no legal responsibility of any sorts.The mother herself is a child.What legal obligations will you impose on a child?

I don't know. But if she isn't responsible for her own bodily actions, why should she alone be able to make medical decisions that govern her body? Should her parents get to decide if she has an abortion or not?

[sin_is_fun]

I've read of a Michigan case from 1980, Grodin vs. Grodin, in which a court ruled the child could sue the mother for taking tetracycline during pregnancy, resulting in various side effects to the child later in life. And there was that criminal case in South Carolina, McKnight v. South Carolina, in which the court convicted Regina McKnight of murder for taking drugs while pregnant and causing her baby to be stillborn. This is a disturbing trend, but don't think it can't happen.

There is also Rowland v. Utah where the pregnant mother was charged for murder of a kid by refusing to undergo ceasearian operation and also for consuming alcohol and trying to murder the feutus.

Further in 1987, Angela Carder was diagnosed with a lung tumor during her 25th week of pregnancy. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided it was appropriate to attempt to "rescue" the fetus from Carders failing body, despite the risk the procedure posed to her and to the fetus and in opposition to her own personal wishes and her familys wishes. After undergoing the court-mandated Caesarean section, both Carder and the premature baby died.

The legal parallel that comes to mind is the obvious one: childbirth. Remember that if you believe human life - with all the inalienable rights that comes with it - begins and conception, the critical moral moment has to be moved forward nine months.

The child will not be called a seperate human while it is an embryo or feutus.It will be a part of the woman,the mother.Definition of terms and words are critical here.It will have life at conception,but when should its legal right start?Only when its born.

Right now, the act of giving birth to a child and bringing it into the world results in the responsibility for the baby being assigned to the parents.

This responsibility starts only when the child is born.If it starts during pregnancy itself then women can be punished for smoking,alcohol consumption,not eating healthy food during pregnancy,not sleeping 10 hours ina day,not gaining weight during pregnancy and so on.

If you have a baby, you're legally obligated to care for it or otherwise see to its well-being by putting it up for adoption - you can't just chuck it into the dumpster and let it die. This responsibility exists because the baby has needs, as a consequence of its existence, and its existence was brought about by the conscious acts of the parents. No offer was ever made to the baby, but our society has decided that the contract is implied by the parents' actions which led to it.

My objections are in the grounds of

1.An underaged mother doesnt have any abiity to enter into a contract.Nobody can say she has contractual ability.

2.No contract is implied when the other party doesnt exist at the time of the act.Society has nothing to say in this issue.

3.Even if the mother is major,no contract is implied with a feutus who is a minor.A feutus who is under the age of 18 has no legal rights to enter into a contract.Such a contract is null and void.

If you argue that life begins at childbirth, then the act of giving birth - at the beginning of which, the person does not exist - is an act which creates a legal responsibility, because it leads to the existence of the person. If you believe life begins at conception, then the same argument applies nine months earlier - assuming the sex was consensual.

When life begings is immaterial here.Actually life begins at the sperm stage.So people will be charged for murder for masturbating and killing millions of sperms.

A childs status as a citizen starts only at birth.The minute it is born it acquires all rights of a citizen who is under age.Before that it isnt considered as a citizen.Without being a citizen it cannot claim for rights.

If it becomes a citizen at stomach of mother itself ,then for foreign travel it needs a passport and visa.

I don't know. But if she isn't responsible for her own bodily actions, why should she alone be able to make medical decisions that govern her body? Should her parents get to decide if she has an abortion or not?

She is eligible for a citizens rights but not liabilities.She will not be denied medical rights of a citizen.She cannot vote,cannot enter into contracts-but nothing prevents her form getting medical treatments.

[jerickson314]

WARNING: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Law of contracts say that to create contractual obligation the following conditions should be fulfilled.

1.There must be an offer and acceptance.
2.There must be a legal consideration
3.Both parties should be competent adults

That's a fairly accurate summary of contract law, but contract law has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Contract law is two-way. Carrying a baby to term, like making payments in return for theft or property damage, is a one-way obligation that doesn't relate to contract law.

[sin_is_fun]

WARNING: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Mee too.I am neither a lawyer nor a liar.

That's a fairly accurate summary of contract law, but contract law has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Contract law is two-way. Carrying a baby to term, like making payments in return for theft or property damage, is a one-way obligation that doesn't relate to contract law.

But without contract how does the obligation arise?You talk about obligation,but what is the basis for such obligation?You can say ethical and moral obligation,but again ethics and morals differ from religion to religion culture to culture,society to society.

If you dont talk about a legal obligation your case becomes just an emotional appeal.If you talk of legal obligation,then there must be a contract.Law talks of implied contracts,but that too doesnt imply here since
the partry to the contract doesnt exist at the time of the action of one party that resulted in contract.

[jerickson314]

WARNING: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

But without contract how does the obligation arise?

The same way that the obligation to pay a speeding ticket arises if you are caught speeding. Or the obligation to pay some family lots of money if you burn their house down.

You talk about obligation,but what is the basis for such obligation?You can say ethical and moral obligation,but again ethics and morals differ from religion to religion culture to culture,society to society.

At least ideally, law.

If you talk of legal obligation,then there must be a contract.

Not true. I gave a couple of counterexamples above. In fact, most criminal and civil cases that are taken to court involve obligations not from contract! One-way obligations, not two-way as contract law describes.

Law talks of implied contracts,but that too doesnt imply here since
the partry to the contract doesnt exist at the time of the action of one party that resulted in contract.

Even an implied contract is two-way. Some obligations are not from contract law at all.

[sin_is_fun]

WARNING: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

The same way that the obligation to pay a speeding ticket arises if you are caught speeding. Or the obligation to pay some family lots of money if you burn their house down.

This analogy doesnt hold because

1.The acts which caused damage to the other party burning house and speeding are illegal acts which are banned by law.Having sex isnt illegal.

If you talk of legal obligation,then there must be a contract.

Not true. I gave a couple of counterexamples above. In fact, most criminal and civil cases that are taken to court involve obligations not from contract! One-way obligations, not two-way as contract law describes.

counter example doesnt hold.explained why previously.

Law talks of implied contracts,but that too doesnt imply here since
the partry to the contract doesnt exist at the time of the action of one party that resulted in contract.

Even an implied contract is two-way. Some obligations are not from contract law at all.

An obligation which doesnt arise from contract law arises only from criminal law.Having sex isnt a criminal offense till date