An Absolute Right to Abortion? Q2

[Magyar]

I didn't want to hijack the thread as my question is a part 2 to this debate.

The "pro-life" (I am just using this for brevity) argument is that the
if and when the fetus is determined to be a live, then this life supercedes the desires of the mother - thus no abortion. ( I am not interested at discussing when this happens. Lets just assume that it's what ever time you pick before natural birth)

While I am pro-choice my view has always been that abortion (unless life threatening or severe medical conditions) should be limited to the time when the fetus can not survive outside of the womb. There must be some point at which there is no turning back.

That said, here is my question; To me following the logical progression of the pro-life argument being made, the court(s) need to step in and clearly define children's rights.

So if the court (pro-lifers) decide that at some point the fetus's right to life supercedes the mothers right to an abortion then by extension how can you say that:

parents have the right to deny a child immunization? After all outside of the wacko fringe who think that vaccines cause autism the reality is that not being immunized puts a child at far greater risk! If the mother does not have the right to abort a fetus, why does she have the right to risk the child's life?
How is this different then hanging a baby out a balcony or driving without them buckled up?

JV parents have the right to refuse medical treatment like blood transfusions based on THEIR, NOT the child's religious beliefs. Will the court(s) speak on the behalf of the child who has no voice in this matter? After all religious beliefs is not a requirement for life but a blood transfusion could be.

that child's(once born) rights do not supercede the parents right to punish?
So wouldn't legal representation be required by law under this theory to every child before they are grounded? Ok, I might be over the top here, BUT really! How would the court decide then at what point the fetus/baby no longer has rights?


Discuss

[Tmy]

First off there is no absolute right to anything.

As for the kid. Parents dont have the right to deny them medical treatemnt. They dont own the kids. Just like a fetus. Mom doesnt own the fetus once t hits that point where its a "person". The big fuss is defining the time where the kid is its own person.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Magyar

So if the court (pro-lifers) decide that at some point the fetus's right to life supercedes the mothers right to an abortion then by extension how can you say that:

parents have the right to deny a child immunization?

The difficulty with this question (and it is difficult) is that it's not simply a matter of the parents denying the child immunization. It also becomes a question of what power does the state have to force immunization. Clearly the state cannot force an adult to accept immunization, and while it's not so simple for the child (since we assume the child does not have full capacity to make such decisions), the problem still exists. There's a real tension here: we do not let the child make such decisions themself, but who then has authority to make the decisions? In general, it should be the parents and not the state. It makes sense to hold parents accountable to some degree for making bad decisions on behalf of their child, but if you start mandating which decisions they can or cannot make a priori, then you're making the state the primary decision-maker, which isn't good either. I don't think there is a perfect solution to this.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Tmy

First off there is no absolute right to anything.

As for the kid. Parents dont have the right to deny them medical treatemnt. They dont own the kids. Just like a fetus. Mom doesnt own the fetus once t hits that point where its a "person". The big fuss is defining the time where the kid is its own person.

Well, parents do still have the right to mutilate their child's penis, severing (I am shocked to recently learn) over 90% of the sexually sensitive skin, for ancient, archaic, ritualistic religious reasons.

Evidently there's a god somewhere who messed up in His Perfect Design.

Either that, or it's psycho-sexual control crap from frustrated religious people.

Occam's razor, you be the judge.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by Magyar

I didn't want to hijack the thread as my question is a part 2 to this debate.

The "pro-life" (I am just using this for brevity) argument is that the
if and when the fetus is determined to be a live, then this life supercedes the desires of the mother - thus no abortion. ( I am not interested at discussing when this happens. Lets just assume that it's what ever time you pick before natural birth)

While I am pro-choice my view has always been that abortion (unless life threatening or severe medical conditions) should be limited to the time when the fetus can not survive outside of the womb. There must be some point at which there is no turning back.

That said, here is my question; To me following the logical progression of the pro-life argument being made, the court(s) need to step in and clearly define children's rights.

So if the court (pro-lifers) decide that at some point the fetus's right to life supercedes the mothers right to an abortion then by extension how can you say that:

parents have the right to deny a child immunization? After all outside of the wacko fringe who think that vaccines cause autism the reality is that not being immunized puts a child at far greater risk! If the mother does not have the right to abort a fetus, why does she have the right to risk the child's life?
How is this different then hanging a baby out a balcony or driving without them buckled up?

It's clearly different from abortion in that we're not killing the child, just putting it at increased risk. A similar logic can be used in both situations, but being against abortion doesn't mean that you logically must support forced immunization.

Originally Posted by Magyar

JV parents have the right to refuse medical treatment like blood transfusions based on THEIR, NOT the child's religious beliefs. Will the court(s) speak on the behalf of the child who has no voice in this matter? After all religious beliefs is not a requirement for life but a blood transfusion could be.

In denmark i don't think you're allowed to veto your child getting life important treatment, though I can't speak for the US, probably it varies with the state. The difference from abortion would be that we'd not actively be killing the child but just allowing it to die. That's generally considered a big difference, though I'm not quite sure I agree.

Originally Posted by Magyar

that child's(once born) rights do not supercede the parents right to punish?
So wouldn't legal representation be required by law under this theory to every child before they are grounded? Ok, I might be over the top here, BUT really! How would the court decide then at what point the fetus/baby no longer has rights?


Discuss

Yes you are over the top, with the last one. The right to live doesn't automatically entail the right not to be diciplined. I could see the connection with the first two, but the last one isn't remotely similar.