PDA

View Full Version : Fetal Rights: Enforceable in Principle



Frans_Jozef
Saturday, December 30th, 2006, 01:41 PM
Fetal Rights: Enforceable in Principle
A response to "Fetal Rights: The Implication of a Supposed Ought," by Tibor R. Machan



by Edwin Vieira, Jr.
Libertarians for Life



An argument frequently used to defend keeping abortion legal is that banning abortion will necessarily lead to severe invasions of personal liberty -- that there will be, for example, "pregnancy police". One important example of this line of reasoning, from a libertarian perspective, is presented by Dr. Tibor R. Machan in "Fetal Rights: The Implication of a Supposed Ought". There, he presents the following argument:
If unborn children "have a serious right to life, then miscarriages or spontaneous abortions must become subjects of extensive and constant police scrutiny".

This "constant police scrutiny" is impossible, because "[w]hatever ... is created at conception ... is often not known to exist until long after conception", even to the pregnant women.

Moreover, "[w]hat is required is public knowledge as well as private knowledge"; for "the rights-protecting authorities ... must be able to know of the existence" of the unborn child in order to protect its rights.

To obtain such "public knowledge" would require that the lives of all pregnant women be "unreasonably scrutinized by authorities".

This "unreasonable scrutiny" would require the establishment of "institutional arrangements" that "involve extensive rights violations and, thus, make discovery of negligence and other criminal conduct during pregnancy morally impossible".

And, therefore, "the 'pro-life' position implies a set of legal consequences that are impossible in the very society that supposedly recognizes the rights of its citizens in all cases other than the unborn". Although superficially appealing, this argument is fatally flawed in numerous particulars.


Read on:
http://www.l4l.org/library/fetalrts.html

OneEnglishNorman
Saturday, December 30th, 2006, 02:00 PM
I am intrigued by Walter Block's (another libertarian) outlook on pregnancy, I need to give the matter more thought. Here's a summation;


Both Murray Rothbard and Walter Block have written articles in this review to the effect that abortion never violates the rights of the unborn child.

The womb, being the sole property of the mother, the child becomes a trespasser by the very fact that the mother no longer desires his continued presence. Like any trespasser, they continue, he may be dislodged at the pleasure of the owner. The subsequent death is not intentional (desired as an end or a means) but merely an unintentional byproduct of his expulsion.

That this is so is highlighted by Walter when he says that where possible a life-preserving means of expulsion must be used: if this is not done, we are confronted not with just knowingly causing death but with murder. I trust that this is an accurate summary of their position.

ladybright
Saturday, December 30th, 2006, 10:33 PM
An interesting article. :read: I would not have agreed with the points that are being refuted.

The concept of fetal rights made me think of this. Which has nothing to do with abortion.

The Story of Unborn Baby B.
Court Orders Baby Be Given Up at Birth

The mother had her other seven children taken away for abuse abnd neglect. http://www.vachss.com/av_articles/babyindex.html

barry
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 04:42 AM
I dont think we have a right to abort,this may sound like a christian perspective, but as a heathen i believe that life is mysterious and ultimately given by divine force[s] , of course societies and individuals have the RIGHT
to use lethal force to defend themselves, families etc, if that is required, such is the nature of life,..It seems to me that anybody who is a genuine heathen must by definition be a spiritual person, as well as a practical person.

If the gods exist ,as they do ,in some spiritual reality, and if we as human beings can interact with these personalities/forces and we can,
then we as human beings are connected to a spiritual/metaphisical reality as well as to the material animalistic sides of existence,that being so ,what constitutes our humanity, when does our spiritual component[s] first appear?


It is this that worries me about the whole abortion issue,
1. what constiutes a human being?
2.If we are not simply animals but have a spiritual/metaphysical dimension to our natures, then does that make abortian infanticide?

ladybright
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 02:58 PM
I have never liked the concept of abortion. However I do not have a significant problem with it before quickening.(when the fetus can be felt moving). I have always felt the the spirt od the aborted child/fetus is not damaged and returns again as another child. I am not sure when the spirt is in place. However I consider it appropriate to hold a ritual after either an abortion or misscarriage. To acknowledge the death of a person/potential person and the loss to the mother. Even if it is an abortion it is still a loss in my opinion.

Now the political-logistical. I support abortion at any stage in the pregnancy to protect the mother's life and health if necessary. I am a proponant of legal abortion, with either parental or judicial consent (In cases of incest or abused teenagers) if the woman is under 18. I have never had an abortion and have seen how it can emotionaly scar a woman.

ladybright
Sunday, December 31st, 2006, 05:55 PM
An interesting article. I would not have agreed with the points that are being refuted.
The concept of fetal rights made me think of this. Which has nothing to do with abortion. In this instance I wish the woman would stop having sex or have a tubal ligation or other form of sterilization. She is a walking danger to children.


The Story of Unborn Baby B.
Court Orders Baby Be Given Up at Birth
The mother had her other seven children taken away for abuse and neglect. http://www.vachss.com/av_articles/babyindex.html

ladybright
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 04:29 PM
According to the Web site of the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 36 states have homicide laws defining a fetus as a person. This whole case is just wrong.

Texas Man Gets Death for Killing Fetus
By ELIZABETH WHITE
Associated Press Writer


SAN ANTONIO (AP) -- A former youth pastor was sentenced to death Wednesday for killing a teenager and her fetus in what is believed to be the first such order in Texas, the nation's busiest death penalty state.

Adrian Estrada, 23, was convicted Friday of one count of capital murder for the death of Stephanie Sanchez and the fetus, of which he was the father.

"This is a significant case," said Bexar County prosecutor Susan Reed. "This is significant for the state."

A 2003 Texas law amended the definition of the word "individual" to include an "unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth."

The death sentence is Texas' first in the death of a fetus, said Dave Atwood, founder of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, which monitors capital cases.

Sanchez, 17, was three months pregnant Dec. 12, 2005, when her body was found in her family's home. She had been choked and stabbed 13 times. During the trial, DNA evidence was presented to show Estrada was the father.

Estrada, a former youth pastor for a church, admitted to the stabbing the day after the killings. Prosecutors also said he worked out at a gym and went shopping after the crime. He showed no emotion when his punishment was read.

"The bad guy that you don't suspect is the one that you can't protect your loved one from," said Scott Simpson, Bexar County assistant prosecutor. "And that's what he was and that's what he is."

Estrada's attorney, Suzanne Kramer, had argued that her client made bad decisions.

"It that enough to execute him? Is that enough to kill him?" she asked the jury.

According to the Web site of the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 36 states have homicide laws defining a fetus as a personSource (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FETUS_KILLING_SENTENCE?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-02-07-19-35-27)

ladybright
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 04:53 PM
According to the Web site of the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 36 states have homicide laws defining a fetus as a person
Texas sometimes goes overboard with the death penalty but it seems appropriate to me in this case. I do not think it is appropriate to charge someone with violence towards a fetus if they had no reasonable way to know it existed. That is not the case with this.

Texas Man Gets Death for Killing Fetus(and mother)
By ELIZABETH WHITE

SAN ANTONIO (AP) -- A former youth pastor was sentenced to death Wednesday for killing a teenager and her fetus in what is believed to be the first such order in Texas, the nation's busiest death penalty state.

Adrian Estrada, 23, was convicted Friday of one count of capital murder for the death of Stephanie Sanchez and the fetus, of which he was the father.

"This is a significant case," said Bexar County prosecutor Susan Reed. "This is significant for the state."

A 2003 Texas law amended the definition of the word "individual" to include an "unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth."

The death sentence is Texas' first in the death of a fetus, said Dave Atwood, founder of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, which monitors capital cases.

Sanchez, 17, was three months pregnant Dec. 12, 2005, when her body was found in her family's home. She had been choked and stabbed 13 times. During the trial, DNA evidence was presented to show Estrada was the father.

Estrada, a former youth pastor for a church, admitted to the stabbing the day after the killings. Prosecutors also said he worked out at a gym and went shopping after the crime. He showed no emotion when his punishment was read.

"The bad guy that you don't suspect is the one that you can't protect your loved one from," said Scott Simpson, Bexar County assistant prosecutor. "And that's what he was and that's what he is."

Estrada's attorney, Suzanne Kramer, had argued that her client made bad decisions.

"It that enough to execute him? Is that enough to kill him?" she asked the jury.

According to the Web site of the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 36 states have homicide laws defining a fetus as a personSource (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FETUS_KILLING_SENTENCE?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-02-07-19-35-27)For that kind of 'bad decisions' with no remorse I find the death penalty appropriate.

Kuu-ukko
Monday, February 12th, 2007, 07:56 PM
I don't see anything bad in an abortion, even if it has no medical reasons. Traditional Finnish custom (therefore Finnish heathenism) believes, that a baby became a human being only in the namegiving ceremony, and not before, when it was incorporated into the family and society.

Ulf
Wednesday, May 16th, 2007, 01:42 AM
An interesting thing to point out is that if they could not afford to raise the child they would not let the child be named or breastfed.


Ceremonies Involved in Name-Giving

Naming is an important rite of incorporation in many cultures, and certainly was so among the Norse. Not all children were raised: children with defects or which the family could not afford to rear were exposed. The fate of a new-born generally was the responsibility of the father, or the male head of household if the father was not available. If it was decided to rear the child, then the baby was washed, dressed, and formally named. The ceremony of naming was certainly a rite of incorporation, for once the child had been named exposing it thereafter counted in the laws as murder. The giving of the name conferred upon the child the status of a member of the family and any rights of inheritance. In antiquity, it is assumed that placing the child at the breast to suckle would have been the act which signified the child was to be reared, not the naming. However, by the Viking Age, the ceremony of naming took the place of this older ceremony.

Source (http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ONNames.shtml)

Europa
Thursday, May 17th, 2007, 10:06 PM
I definately don't think aborton should be used as a form of birth control as some may be wont to use it. But didn't our ancestors "expose" children who were born deformed? As far as healthy, normal children go, I find aborting them disgusting and repulsive. I had an incredible bond with my babies before they were even born. On the flip side of this issue is this: in some ways it also seems repulsive and abusive to keep some of these children alive who are born with serious debillitating handicaps. There was a child I read about a while back who was born without pain sensors. She tore out and eye and injured herself badly, all because she could not feel! What kind of inhuman monsters are we to keep people around like this?

Catterick
Thursday, June 30th, 2016, 02:50 AM
In early Norse laws exposure was allowed only for certain deformities, sometimes with curious descriptions like "born with the head of a seal".