Reblogged: Fetuses Don’t Have Rights; Pregnant Women Do; This Distin

[Blog Auto Feed Retired]

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6235" title="pregnant" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/pregnant2-200x300.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="300" />Various opponents of abortion like to pretend that, if a woman has a right to seek an abortion, the law can do nothing to protect a fetus that a woman wishes to carry to term. But that pretense is nonsense.</p>

<p>As Diana Hsieh and I have <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/abortion-rights.asp" target="_blank">argued</a>, an embryo or a fetus is not a person, and a woman has a right to seek an abortion. However, that does not mean a fetus has no value: A fetus is enormously valuable to the pregnant woman and the father who want to have a child. Just as a woman has a right to abort a fetus, so she has a right to carry it to term, unmolested by others. Although the fetus does not have rights of its own, the pregnant woman has rights; thus, the government properly protects her body, its contents, and her choice to bring the fetus to term.</p>

<p>With that context in mind, consider the legal chaos that arose in a lawsuit against the St. Thomas Moore Hospital in Colorado.</p>

<p>As the <em>Denver Post</em> <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22453170" target="_blank">reports</a>, in 2006 Lori Stodghill, who was seven months pregnant with twins. She went to the hospital’s emergency room, where she “suffered a blocked artery in her lung . . . went into cardiac arrest” and died. Her twins died, too. “Doctors couldn’t save Lori and decided against a cesarian section to try to save the twins. [Lori’s husband Jeremy] Stodghill sued because he believes they should have performed the C-section,” the <em>Post</em> reports. Although Stodghill lost the case, his attorney has appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.</p>

<p>The hospital’s lawyers argued that the judge “should dismiss wrongful-death claims with regard to the unborn twins because Colorado law does not define a fetus as a person,” the <em>Post</em> continues. Stodghill, on the other hand, contended the fetuses were “persons,” and, later, so did the hospital. A follow-up article from the <em>Post</em> <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22516686/suit-catholic-lawyers-wont-cite-defense-that-fetuses" target="_blank">reports</a> that the hospital “acknowledged [on February 4] it was morally wrong for their attorneys to defend a medical malpractice case in the death of unborn twins by arguing Colorado law doesn’t consider fetuses to be persons.”</p>

<p>The entire legal case is utterly confused. Given that fetuses are not individuated persons with rights, Stodghill and his attorneys had no proper legal grounds to sue under the wrongful-death statute, which is specifically <a href="http://www.westword.com/2013-01-24/news/catholic-church-is-a-fetus-a-person/2/" target="_blank">restricted</a> to “the death of a person.”</p>

<p><a id="callout-subscribe-blog-int-l" title="Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason" href="/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int">Subscribe to the<br />Journal for People of Reason</a>That said, although a fetus is not a person, the negligent death of a fetus that its mother and father want to bring to birth constitutes a profound harm to the parents. (The question of the doctors’ alleged negligence is outside the scope of this post, as is the question of whether existing statutes adequately address the issues of negligence and criminal harm.)</p>

<p>Properly, the fact that a fetus is not a person is no barrier to holding accountable those who, through criminal assault or negligence, cause or contribute to the death of a fetus. The pregnant woman has a right to decide whether to seek an abortion or seek to carry her fetus to term—and the government’s proper responsibility in this context is to protect her right to choose.</p>

<p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p>

<p><strong>Related:</strong></p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/abortion-rights.asp" target="_blank">The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/01/anti-abortion-crusade-is-anti-life-anti-rights-anti-reason/" target="_blank">Anti-Abortion Crusade is Anti-Life, Anti-Rights, Anti-Reason</a></li>

</ul>

<p style="font-size: 10px;">Image: iStockPhoto</p>

Link to Original

[ruveyn1]

The fetus is the property of the woman carry it.  She has the right to maintain it or dispose of it.  Just like any other kind of property.

 

ruveyn1

[Jonathan13]

The fetus is the property of the woman carry it.  She has the right to maintain it or dispose of it.  Just like any other kind of property.

 

ruveyn1

Then I think we've possibly come up with a solution to the circumcision issue that even Objectivist opponents of circumcision can be happy with: circumcision performed at the last second in utero. The fetus is still property and not yet rights-possessing, and therefore Objectivtists' objections to circumcision being a violation of the infant's rights would not apply. Problem solved.

J

[bluecherry]

If you could pull that off then it should cover any potential legal issues. Morally though, not everything you have the right to do is a good idea, so this is irrelevant to the moral aspect.

[Jonathan13]

If you could pull that off then it should cover any potential legal issues. Morally though, not everything you have the right to do is a good idea, so this is irrelevant to the moral aspect.

 

The "moral aspect" is the assertion that circumcising infants violates their rights. Circumcising them in utero removes that objection because, as I stated above, Objectivism holds that fetuses have no rights. If it is not immoral for one to fully destroy one's "property" via abortion, certainly it can't be immoral to simply snip a little bit of the foreskin of one's "property" for the sake of keeping the "property" clean in the future.

J

[Nicky]

The "moral aspect" is the assertion that circumcising infants violates their rights. Circumcising them in utero removes that objection because, as I stated above, Objectivism holds that fetuses have no rights. If it is not immoral for one to fully destroy one's "property" via abortion, certainly it can't be immoral to simply snip a little bit of the foreskin of one's "property" for the sake of keeping the "property" clean in the future.

J

You're mistaken, it's not the Objectivist position that fetuses are property.

[bluecherry]

The "moral aspect" is the assertion that circumcising infants violates their rights. Circumcising them in utero removes that objection because, as I stated above, Objectivism holds that fetuses have no rights. If it is not immoral for one to fully destroy one's "property" via abortion, certainly it can't be immoral to simply snip a little bit of the foreskin of one's "property" for the sake of keeping the "property" clean in the future.

J

 

No, rights violation is just one moral aspect, the only one relevant to the legal issue. You could do all kinds of stuff to a fetus just prior to giving birth to it with full intent of having it live a full life that would still be horrible. You could, for example, cut their eyes out just before birth and leave them to be blind for what will most likely be forever on. I'm not saying circumcision as it is usually done on males is this extreme and obviously debilitating, just that lacking rights doesn't mean anything goes morally necessarily.