Welcome to Gaia! ::

Actually Waters, its not off topic at all. The clarification of M vs S is a valid counter point to those who claim bodily integrity, as the BD argument is mostly derived from that case. Also, even if some here claim BD based off personal beleifs and not Court Case, its still a valid explanation to those who do for future referencing in further debate.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/lawmcfall.html

McFall v. Shimp
Allegheny County Court, 1978


10 Pa. D. & C. 3d 90 (197 cool

The Plaintiff, Ribert McFall, suffers from a rare form of bone marrow disease [aplastic anemia] and the prognosis for his survival is very dim, unless he receives a bone marrow transplant from a compatible donor. Finding a compatible donor, however, is a very difficult task, and limited to a selection among close relatives. After a search and certain tests, it has been determined that only the Defendant is suitable as a donor. The Defendant refuses to submit to the necessary transplant, and before the Court is a request for a preliminary injunction which seeks to compel the defendant to submit to further tests, and eventually the bone marrow transplant.

Although a diligent search has produced no authority, the Plaintiff cites the ancient statute of King Edward I. St. Westminster 2, 13 Ed., I, c 24, pointing, as is the case, that this Court is a successor of the English courts of Chancery and derives power from this statute, almost 700 years old. The question posed by the Plaintiff is that, in order to save the life of one of its members by the only means available, may society infringe upon one's absolute right to his "bodily security"?

The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue. A great deal has been written regarding this rule which, on the surface, appears to be revolting in a moral sense. Introspection, however, will demonstrate that the rule is founded upon the very essence of our free society. It is noteworthy that counsel for the Plaintiff has cited authority which has developed in other societies in support of the Plaintiff's request in this instance. Our society, contrary to many others, has as its first principle, the respect for the individual, and that society and government exist to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by another. Many societies adopt a contrary view which has the the individual existing to serve the society as a whole.

In preserving such a society as we have, it is bound to happen that great moral conflicts will arise and will appear harsh in a given instance. In this case, the chancellor is being asked to force one member of society to undergo a medical procedure which would provide that part of that individual's body would be removed from him and given to another so that the other could live. Morally, this decision rests with the Defendant, and, in the view of the Court, the refusal of the Defendant is morally indefensible. For our law to COMPEL the Defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn.

This request is not to be compared with an action at law for damages, but rather is an action in equity before a Chancellor, which, in the ultimate, if granted, would require the [forcible] submission to the medical procedure.

For a society which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concepts of jurisprudence. Forceible extraction of living body tissue causes revulsion to the judicial mind. Such would raise the spectre of the swastika and the Inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends.

The court makes no comment on the law regarding the Plaintiff's right at an action at law for damages, but has no alternative but to deny the requested equitable relief. An Order will be entered denying the request for a preliminary injunction.

****************************
Many pro-choicers have taken to referring to this case as a means of defending bodily integrity. Oddly enough, Roe vs. Wade makes no mention of bodily integrity. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Here we have a case that has NOTHING to do with abortion, yet pro-choicers have desperately seized it for their own, stretching and twisting it all out of shape in an effort to make it fit their situation. Guess what? They fail. Utterly. Totally. Completely. Read the bolded parts of the ruling carefully. I will address them in order.

1. The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue.

In pregnancy, the woman does not have to give aid or take any action to save or rescue the fetus. It is a purely passive relationship. The woman does not have to do anything except the normal daily routines: sleeping, eating, etc. Having an abortion is actually the direct opposite of giving aid. It is deliberate homicide of another human being.

2. In this case, the chancellor is being asked to force one member of society to undergo a medical procedure which would provide that part of that individual's body would be removed from him and given to another so that the other could live.

In pregnancy, NOTHING is removed. NOTHING. It all takes place within the woman's body and in the end she's left with everything she started with. Also please note that it says MEDICAL procedure. I realize that there are those out there who are so pathologically selfish that the mere thought of sharing NUTRIENTS sends them into convulsions, but sharing nutrients is NOT A MEDICAL PROCEDURE!

3. Forceible extraction of living body tissue causes revulsion to the judicial mind.

Frankly, that sounds more like abortion than pregnancy. Again, pregnancy does not require for ANYTHING to be forcibly removed from within the woman's body. It is all internal.

To sum it all up, McFall vs. Shimp deals only with enforced MEDICAL procedures such as blood marrow transplants, organ transplants and even blood transfusion. It has NO bearing whatsoever on the NON-MEDICAL situation of being pregnant.

Actions needs to be taken in the form of seeking out prenatal care. A woman can actually be charged with neglect if she 'goes about her daily routines' if those routines include even casual alcohol consumption, drug use... just saying.



And like I said, it's possible to use a case as a precedent even when the situation isn't exactly the same if the logic can be applied. In this case, it's obvious pro-choicers see the logic as "forcing a person to give up their right to bodily security is wrong."
Giving birth in a hospital is considered a 'medical procedure.' Anything involving a stay in a hospital with a doctor overseeing it is a 'medical procedure.' 'Medical procedure doesn't only refer to invasive surgeries.
A forced pregnancy would result in a forced medical procedure unless the woman gives birth at home without a doctor and without prescribed medications, which is certainly possible, although I doubt it's really ideal, especially if we were theoretically talking about a forced pregnancy/birth.



Would a forced pregnancy where a C-section was deemed medically necessary count? At this point, I'm honestly curious.




Being pregnant and thius GIVING BIRTH is a MEDICAL situation. It has become a medical situation because of the technology-reliant society we've become and I'm pretty sure it will remain one until the majority of humans go back to being pregnant and giving birth without any medical intervention at all.

The argument is whether or not the legal precedent deals with the logic of "forced surgery is wrong" or "violations of bodily security are wrong." That depends entirely on who you ask and it's obvious where we both stand. The only way this could be completely invalidated as a pro-choice legal argument is if it's tossed out as an irrelevant ruling by another court of law.

No. I feel that the pregnant woman should be allowed to demand a C-Section or that labor be induced, but not an abortion. Because there are (or should be) those two options available that allow her to deny use of her body to the unborn human without resulting in its death.

Yup. You're totally conscious most of the time, too.

I'm willing to go back to the original topic, if you like.

No, I mean, I like debating. I just also liked what we were talking about before. If you don't mind that the thread is off topic, there is no real reason to direct the new topic elsewhere.

But thanks! *big grin* (I'm glad you're back, by the way - also, your avatar looks pretty.)

I think it's sad that you wouldn't be friends with someone who had an abortion that you don't approve of. What prompts you to make this decision?


For me, the complications is a big issue. For example:


To the best of my knowledge, having dwarfism isn't just being short (I actually first learned this when I saw a show about some people purposefully breeding dwarf dogs, and how a lot of people were upset because dwarfism often comes with health problem.). It's also having an increased risk for a range of health problems (although maybe not all kinds of dwarfism have an increased risk of health problems; I'm not an expert).


As far as I can tell, cleft pallet can come with other problems as well.
See here

I also remember reading something about how sometimes a cleft pallet can be so extreme that it goes up into the brain. But I can't find that right now, so I could be wrong.