30 Apr 08
Originally posted by pawnhandlerVery true, which is why this is of concern. Wouldn't want a society to be causing unnecessary emotional trauma to women.
A miscarriage isn't intentional and for many women it's a devastating event that they carry with them for a very long time, if not forever.
If a fetus should have the same rights and protections as a person, would doctors have to start testing for abortion drugs to assure an inquest that the miscarriage were natural?
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by mrstabbyIf you give a fetus rights, then you take away reproductive rights from a woman. I don't see how you can take rights away from one group by giving them to another group.
If a fetus should have the same rights and protections as a person, would doctors have to start testing for abortion drugs to assure an inquest that the miscarriage were natural?
A woman will always and should always have control over her own body...unless some country elects a religous hardliner that removes this basic right from women. I don't see this happening in any modern civiilization.
Maybe the US.
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by uzlessIf you give fetuses rigths, you will also need to give rights to appendixes, kidneys, livers, ect.
If you give a fetus rights, then you take away reproductive rights from a woman. I don't see how you can take rights away from one group by giving them to another group.
A woman will always and should always have control over her own body...unless some country elects a religous hardliner that removes this basic right from women. I don't see this happening in any modern civiilization.
Maybe the US.
02 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessThe fetus is not a part of the woman's body. The fetus has its own DNA. It has its own life. It is a human being.
If you give a fetus rights, then you take away reproductive rights from a woman. I don't see how you can take rights away from one group by giving them to another group.
A woman will always and should always have control over her own body...unless some country elects a religous hardliner that removes this basic right from women. I don't see this happening in any modern civiilization.
Maybe the US.
02 May 08
Originally posted by uzless"I don't see how you can take rights away from one group by giving them to another group."
If you give a fetus rights, then you take away reproductive rights from a woman. I don't see how you can take rights away from one group by giving them to another group.
A woman will always and should always have control over her own body...unless some country elects a religous hardliner that removes this basic right from women. I don't see this happening in any modern civiilization.
Maybe the US.
Reasoning this way slavery would still be legal.
02 May 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeWho's rights were taken away by freeing the slaves?
"I don't see how you can take rights away from one group by giving them to another group."
Reasoning this way slavery would still be legal.
The right, as quoted in the bible, to own slaves? Is that what you are referring to?
There is an obvious difference in that the right has to be a legitmate right in the first place.
02 May 08
Originally posted by mrstabbyNo. The doctors would be given the authority to determine if such measures were needed. The doctor would know his patient well enough to determine intent. In the event of someone without a personal physician who just appears at the ER, again, the doctor on duty makes the call.
Very true, which is why this is of concern. Wouldn't want a society to be causing unnecessary emotional trauma to women.
If a fetus should have the same rights and protections as a person, would doctors have to start testing for abortion drugs to assure an inquest that the miscarriage were natural?
02 May 08
Originally posted by ivanhoeI miss the part where the human has a right to be inside of another human being. If a woman doesn't consent the use of her body then the fetus has no right to be there.
The fetus is not a part of the woman's body. The fetus has its own DNA. It has its own life. It is a human being.
06 May 08
Originally posted by uzlessWould you let one siamese twin order a doctor to kill the other one? The woman can do whatever whe wants with her own body, but not if it results in the death of another body. It's like giving someone the right to stab someone else because they're using their own arm to stab the person.
If you give a fetus rights, then you take away reproductive rights from a woman. I don't see how you can take rights away from one group by giving them to another group.
A woman will always and should always have control over her own body...unless some country elects a religous hardliner that removes this basic right from women. I don't see this happening in any modern civiilization.
Maybe the US.
Also, taking rights away from one group in order to protect the lives of another group, in my opinion, is justified.
As to the original topic of this thread, I don't think that an inquest would be necessary. Unless, of course, there was overwhelming reason to believe that an abortion had been carried out. I believe that the real problem with abortion is how readily accessible it is.