|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:50 pm
I've heard some pro-choicers talk about Mcfall vs shimp. What does this have to do with abortion?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:09 pm
It states that one person does not have the right to use another person's body without their consent.
So basically, that even if the fetus is a person, it can still be aborted because it does not have the right to the mothers body.
This argument fails when we look at a maternal/fetal relationship. McFall V. Shimp is dealing with a man whose own body has failed him. He is in need of a bone marrow transplant and the only viable option is his cousin. His cousin can not be legally obligated to give the gift of bone marrow because he is not responsible for using his body to save the life of his cousin.
The difference in a pregnancy is the fact that a fetus' body is not failing. It simply needs nutriants and housing to survive. It needs are the same as a born child, but to meet these needs the fetus must remain inside the mother. While someone could not be forced to give up their body to help their child who has lukemia, they could not simply send the sick child out on the street and refuse to care for it. Aborting a child is far more similar to sending your child out on the street than it is providing bone marrow for a child that needs a transplant.
The underlying argument here is that you can not neglect your child. Aborting your child and cutting it off from nutriants and housing is neglect...the fact that the child needs your body for these basic functions is meaningless in that light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 4:18 pm
Also another way to combat the argument would be to say that because the woman consented to the sexual activity she knowingly put the child in a position where it required the use of her body. Similar to if somone injured another person but then refused to give them a life saving blood transplant. Because that person put the other in a position where he/she required the other's body, they are then liable for the other persons death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 6:14 pm
Of coarse they will attempt to counter that argument by stateing they did not consent to pregancy because they used contraceptives.
This argument is easly countered by stating that by using contraceptives and having sex, you consentend to knowng that there was a chance the contraceptives could fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 7:42 pm
But what about in the question of rape? I know that it's a rare chance, but it stills happens.
Then would the rapist be responsible?
Personally I think that rape and unwilling incest is a whole different thing. But really, if abortion were outlawed in cases of rape... Then what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 4:11 am
Then what?
Most of us see no diffrence between a child concieved between protected sex and unplanned, unprotected sex and unplanned, unprotected sex and planned, and rape. They are all children, new humans just beggining the stages of development and growth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:33 am
Air Pirate Mako Streak But what about in the question of rape? I know that it's a rare chance, but it stills happens. Then would the rapist be responsible? If it is rape the consent argument goes right out the window. However, the "neglect" argument does not. That's why I think the neglect argument is the strongest in this arena. I know that legally there is no foundation for such prenatal neglect except in the area of alcohol consumption, but I think ethically and objectivly there is no qualitative difference between neglecting a fetus and neglecting a one year old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 12:29 pm
I lurve you, Broorel.
*applauds*
May I bear your online children?
ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
