posted
For the moment, I'm assuming that the majority of people at one point in their lives make a stupid mistake. Sometimes, the mistake has major consequences.
But my example is extreme. The majority of the situations would be in a more long-term relationship.
That said, do we really want to force people with poor judgment to have children at all?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi-As I said, I had no viable compromise for offering men rights concerning abortion or childbirth, I just recognized that it was a horrible state that men had so little say when it came to parental rights, including those related to abortion. I was largely exploring ideas out loud. (I often do this...I must try to be more concise...)
As you said in your second post, that would be a much more reasonable application. That was somewhat more of what I mean by my statements of men having more rights to whether or not the mother of the child has abortion. Of course, please keep in mind that, as you said, there are the possibilities of extremes in any situation, those hypothetical and even things that happen now in real life with the current legal status.
It comes down to whether you would rather men have at least partial rights in certain situations, or have no rights at all whatsoever, despite the circumstances?
I'm not going to say whether or not abortion is acceptable. I can't possibly know enough about every single person's life, about the future, about every detail of every situation to say whether or not it should be universally illegal for every application-I only know what I would do in certain situations, and what I would hope others would do.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: A coworker of mine is having a child. He said his wife has decided to have a c section because there are less chance of complications and they believe it to be easier for the mother and child. C-sections are like epidurals and abortions have become birth control.
Bullshit.
To what part exactly, were you referring Kwea? Were you referring to the metaphor in the second part, about C-sections and abortions becoming far too overused for something not intended for their cause, or the first part?
Actually, I agree with Kwea on this point, though I would tend to use the term "hyperbole", as it's more accurate and less likely to receive sanction.
In 2002, there were approximately 1,269,000 abortions in the United States. During the same period, according to U.N. information , over 25 million women used conventional, "modern" methods of birth control- and that number reflects only women that were "married or in union [regularly cohabiting in a marriage-like relationship]".
Similarly, while in 2006, c-section rates in the U.S. were higher than has been recommended by the WHO ( 31.1% as of 2006 according to Wikipedia), epidural rates tend to be over 90%. More notably, with regards to this particularly ridiculous argument, only 1 woman out of nearly 1600 in a Listening to Mothers survey "reported that she had had a planned first c-section with no medical reason at her own request".
Admittedly, there have, anecdotally, been more cases of c-sections that occurred because it was a matter of comfort than a matter of necessity, but that's not the argument being made.
The argument that was made seems to stem more from delusions of persecution than any recognizable shared reality.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe a father should have no so say in wether the mother has an abortion or keeps the child and all fathers should be obligated to provide for their children. I'm viewing it as a logical argument for the sake of equality of responsibility.
Going further, wether discussing abortion or C-cections, at what point will huminity draw the line between what we can do medically and what we should do. If some day stem cells can correct Down's Syndrome in a fetus, will it become a womans right to pick the traits of the child? Can the mother choose to have a daughter that looks exactly like her at the objections of the father? After all, it is her body, therefore her child.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Can the mother choose to have a daughter that looks exactly like her at the objections of the father? After all, it is her body, therefore her child.
Not really, as that decision(if it were possible) doesn't have any risk of endangering the mother's body. If it doesn't increase the risk of danger during pregnancy, that argument doesn't even come close to holding water.
It might even be arguable that if the child were at risk, and this were possible in the future, the father probably would have some legal rights to oppose it for the welfare of the child. After all, the father can report a drug using pregnant woman can he not?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Can the mother choose to have a daughter that looks exactly like her at the objections of the father? After all, it is her body, therefore her child.
Not really, as that decision(if it were possible) doesn't have any risk of endangering the mother's body. If it doesn't increase the risk of danger during pregnancy, that argument doesn't even come close to holding water.
It might even be arguable that if the child were at risk, and this were possible in the future, the father probably would have some legal rights to oppose it for the welfare of the child. After all, the father can report a drug using pregnant woman can he not?
That decision will be possible. The inherent risks you speak of are natural ones. A normal pregnancy with normal risks can't be a water carrying argument either. I take risks driving my car to work to support my wife and kids. How can I be forced to take this daily risk to pay support for a child. Afterall, you're more likely to die on the road than in the labor room.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I believe a father should have no so say in wether the mother has an abortion or keeps the child and all fathers should be obligated to provide for their children. I'm viewing it as a logical argument for the sake of equality of responsibility.
Going further, wether discussing abortion or C-cections, at what point will huminity draw the line between what we can do medically and what we should do. If some day stem cells can correct Down's Syndrome in a fetus, will it become a womans right to pick the traits of the child? Can the mother choose to have a daughter that looks exactly like her at the objections of the father? After all, it is her body, therefore her child.
posted
So a father should have absolutely no right to whether or not he keeps the child that he helped make? The woman is waving her rights to the child by giving it up for adoption anyway-the man can't even keep a child she doesn't want?
You're stating that it's moreso her child that it is his.
She can just kill it, or give it away, and should he decide he doesn't want to be a part of the child's life, he still has to pay even if he wants to sign away his legal rights, but wouldn't be allowed this, even though she would?
If you believe this, please give the reasons behind your "logical argument for the sake of equality of responsibility.", which, quite honestly, just sounds like sexism.
Woman bear the children. That does NOT make them more important to the raising of it than the father. Lord knows my mother wasn't. My father is the most caring, supportive, and dedicated father I do believe I ever met, and loves us heart and soul, and fought to raise us to the best of his abilities.
Now, I understand, this isn't always the case.
But, if my mom decided to give us away, just because she didn't want us, he would have no say so? You would deny a father his children, solely because of biological conditions that are far beyond his control?
Posts: 135 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: That said, do we really want to force people with poor judgment to have children at all?
Not that we really need another abortion thread. And not that I am in favor of outlawing abortion anyway -- I'm definitely not.
But if you view the pregnancy as a natural consequence of their actions, no one is forcing them to have children. Their own actions are.
Anyway, if they are not fit parents, hopefully they will either give the kid up for adoption, or it will be taken from them by DCS.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The man's decision to waive his rights is dependent upon her doing so. She decides for him, if she keeps it he is obligated. True, courts can decide between the two parties. If she AGREES to have him out of the picture she can allow him to give up his rights and financial obligations. She decides for him at all levels.
If she decides to give it up, he can have it. If not, he'll have to fight to get it. Unlikely if she is moderately responsible. She can drop it off at fire station without consequences and he could assert his rights at this point.
My point is, the mother of a newborn will never be forced to pay if she doesn't want the child.
Abortion being legal makes this convoluded. If it were illegal we would not have this discussion. Man and woman would be on equal ground.
Both mother and father should take responsibility for the their actions. No free passes for either one.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, that's true about abortion. Perhaps I need to do my research. I had no idea men's giving up parental rights was dependent upon the woman.
That's utterly ridiculous. If she can give it up without any consequences, he should be able to do the same.
To your other points. Unless mothers legally waive all rights, they can be made to give child support. It has been known to happen.
As for your other statement about him having to fight to get it-custody is not immediately awarded to the woman, with the man having to "fight" to get it. In a custody battle, both parents have to argue on their behalf for custody of the child, presumably on equal footing. (Although in practice it might be quite different, due to bias, average, etc.)
Perhaps it was only my interpretation, but the way you stated it it seemed as if you were saying the woman had automatic custody, and any plea on the man for custody had to go to appeal. This is not true.
I don't wish to get into a big, long discussion about the necessity or the evils of abortion. But, as was stated, it's just the state instead of the man forcing the woman to have the child.
I personally think this sentiment is bullcrap, however.
The double standards against men in these fields are amazing. A woman getting an abortion is forcing the man to not have a child.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't truly believe a man should be able to wash his hands of responsibility, it's just an argument. I'm sure a man can give up his rights at any time but not financial responsibility.
I could be wrong but balanced custody battles usually are the result of an ongoing relationship and over a child that is not a newborn. If the mother is an unfit drug addict and the courts intervene early, the father could get the child shortly after birth. Both parents being moderately fit, a serious ongoing legal battle would follow. I'm pretty sure the man would be arrested for kidnapping if he came and took the child from the mother despite having "equal custody". I may be incorrect in this assumption, but I wouldn't test it out.
Perhaps I shouldn't have started this post. I disagree with my own argument on moral grounds.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't about fathers' rights and mothers' rights.
The child, once it is born, has the right to support from both parents.
Before it is born, the rights of the fetus are balanced against the right of a person to her own body.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Before it is born, the rights of the fetus are balanced against the right of a person to her own body.
'Balanced'? I realize this may be snarky, and I don't intend it that way, but unless I'm mistaken in your opinion the rights of the fetus are trumped by the right of a person to her own body in almost any conceivable case.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, unless I misremember your opinion about abortion is that it's a regrettable decision or necessity, but that the right a woman has to sovereignty over her own body outweighs any rights, potential or actual, the fetus might have to continue existing.
Edit: That's a very brief description of my recollection, of course. I also believe your opinion on the matter, from incomplete recollections of past discussions, is just as nuanced as anyone else of good will who has considered it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that there is a difference between moral rights and legal rights. I think that the rights of a woman to her body should be balanced with the rights of the fetus, but not that the balancing should be done by the law.
Does that make sense?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the difference between moral rights and legal rights is effectively what we as a society decide it is. Legal rights are, after all, completely arbitrary. So while I understand the idea you're expressing, the idea you're expressing doesn't really make sense to me, personally. But that's natural, since after all it's your opinion, not mine.
Anyway, as to my initial question, I was referring like the thread itself to legal questions. Legally speaking, the rights or potential rights of the fetus aren't balanced at all with the rights of the woman's body sovereignty from your perspective. In fact they're completely secondary on a legal ground.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
The thing is, though, if you're speaking from a moral perspective, and you say that morally the rights or potential rights of the fetus should be balanced against the rights of the woman to body sovereignty, well that implies that there are at least some situations in which terminating the pregnancy would be immoral.
In which case the fetus, whether it's human or not, has a right not to be terminated from a moral standpoint...but should not be protected.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once moral rights are redefined as legal rights the government can take them away. Moral rights or inalienable rights cannot be taken away unless or until redefined as rights granted by man.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, yes, clearly.
The thing is, though, if you're speaking from a moral perspective, and you say that morally the rights or potential rights of the fetus should be balanced against the rights of the woman to body sovereignty, well that implies that there are at least some situations in which terminating the pregnancy would be immoral.
In which case the fetus, whether it's human or not, has a right not to be terminated from a moral standpoint...but should not be protected.
Because the law or government, is not, in my opinion, the best judge of when that is.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: posted by Malenthrop -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once moral rights are redefined as legal rights the government can take them away. Moral rights or inalienable rights cannot be taken away unless or until redefined as rights granted by man. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone else worried about their moral rights? Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I don't truly believe a man should be able to wash his hands of responsibility, it's just an argument. I'm sure a man can give up his rights at any time but not financial responsibility.
I could be wrong but balanced custody battles usually are the result of an ongoing relationship and over a child that is not a newborn. If the mother is an unfit drug addict and the courts intervene early, the father could get the child shortly after birth. Both parents being moderately fit, a serious ongoing legal battle would follow. I'm pretty sure the man would be arrested for kidnapping if he came and took the child from the mother despite having "equal custody". I may be incorrect in this assumption, but I wouldn't test it out.
Perhaps I shouldn't have started this post. I disagree with my own argument on moral grounds.
I'm glad that you're coming to that conclusion.
Look, it's not that on some level I don't know what you were getting at, it's just that you can't talk about reproduction as if equality is even an option. Ever since the days of equal rights for men and women, we've fought over what, if any, actual differences exist between men and women. Even the most hardcore feminists can't get around the fact that women get pregnant and men don't.
But there's more than that. Biologically, women have a much harder time walking away from their offspring than men do. Our bodies secrete hormones to make us want to be moms to our babies. About 3-5 days after birth, our bodies start producing milk whether or not we decide to use it for anything. And as a breastfeeding mom myself, the idea of ripping a newborn away from a nursing mom makes my skin crawl. I know not all moms make that choice (and the aforementioned ones on drugs should not make that choice), but having nursed one baby for a year and a half and another for 10 months and still going, I got to tell you that at this point I still feel that my baby and I are bonded....physically...and that any attempt to separate us would be a terrible violation.
Equality is an interesting ideal. When it comes to men and women, becoming a mother has shown me that practicality is often more important.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Scott: but you are aware that even with healthy, normal births to mothers keeping the baby there are with moderately high frequency a lot more problems than just stretch marks, such as post-partum depression?
I'm not sure what your point is, or why you directed this at me, fugu. *I* didn't mention anything about stretch-marks-- that was malanthrop, here:
quote:Javert,
She can give it up. There are good families waiting in line to adopt but stretch marks might be too much of a sacrifice.
...expressing an attitude I do not find conducive to honest conversation.
At any rate, here are is an interesting statistic from the Census Bureau about child support. From this link (PDF)
quote:About 63.0 percent of custodial mothers and 38.6 percent of fathers had child support agreed or awarded to them.
Of those that were awarded child support, 45% of custodial mothers received some sort of payment; 39% of custodial fathers received some sort of payment. (The chart's in the pdf)
A very interesting read. While I accept as true the idea that non-custodial mothers are ordered to pay child support, the practical numbers don't exactly seem to line up with it.
At least, not equitably. Numbers, unfortunately don't give us reasons for why the discrepancy exists, or is so large. (Speaking here of the discrepancy in child support award, not of child support payments made.)
quote:Imagine the extreme.
We don't make policy around the extreme.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because the law or government, is not, in my opinion, the best judge of when that is.
Neither, your statements indicate, in all cases is the woman, either. So again we're left with a fetus that has a moral right (in at least some cases) not to be terminated, but lacks any right to protection.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it have made more sense if I had said the fetus's rights were weighed against the woman's rights? I was using the term "balance" as is "put in the balance against" not to indicate that they are equal.
And for many women the rights of the fetus do take precedence.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would it have made more sense if I had said the fetus's rights were weighed against the woman's rights? I was using the term "balance" as is "put in the balance against" not to indicate that they are equal.
Well, if we were talking from a legal standpoint, it wouldn't make sense really, because in that contest there's no contest at all.
quote:And for many women the rights of the fetus do take precedence.
Well, I suppose that's one way of putting it. Another way would be that in many cases, it's a happy coincidence for the fetus that its own rights coincide with the completely sovereign choice of the woman.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was talking about women who don't want to be pregnant but still carry babies to term.
I understand. From their own personal perspective, that is the way it is, I dig. It's just that, from a social perspective...well, it really is just a happy coincidence, isn't it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
These "legal rights" for fetuses (feti?) business is largely unnecessary.
For one thing, in the United States fetuses have no rights-whether or not they live or die depends solely on the choice of the woman, and whether or not her situation permits her to either get enough money for an abortion and the transportation, or whether it can be provided for her.
Barring some restrictions on term lengths, that's about all there is concerning "legal rights".
Moral rights, however, is a completely different matter.
Whether or not a baby has "moral rights" would depend on what the mother and others immediately within that situation felt about "moral rights".
I, as well as most of the people here, I"m assuming, believe every life, even the unborn, has inherent value.
If the mother did not believe this whatsoever, or merely did not care, "moral rights" would have absolutely no meaningful application, so long as "legal rights" are the way that they are.
In simpler terms, it doesn't matter what we feel about the right or wrongness of abortion-with the current legal climate, the only thing that really matters is how the mother feels about it, because the baby can't really do anything about it anyway, no matter how much it deserves to live.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was talking about women who don't want to be pregnant but still carry babies to term.
I understand. From their own personal perspective, that is the way it is, I dig. It's just that, from a social perspective...well, it really is just a happy coincidence, isn't it?
I don't understand "happy coincidence". What about it is happy as far as society is concerned? I can see how it would be happy for the baby, but it is not happy for the woman. And what is coincidental about a woman weighing her right to her body with the fetus's right to survive and deciding that the fetus's rights were more important than hers?
quote:I don't understand "happy coincidence". What about it is happy as far as society is concerned?
Hmm. I'm not sure if I've ever discussed abortion in exactly this way, so I apologize for any lack of clarity. When I said 'happy coincidence' I meant that in the situation we were discussing - a woman deciding to carry a pregnancy to term even though she personally didn't want to be pregnant - from society's perspective, looking at the issue of any kind of fetal rights, it is only a bit of good luck that the right of the fetus was protected. The fetus was just lucky that the mother decided to carry it to term, no more, no less.
Does that make any sense?
quote:And what is coincidental about a woman weighing her right to her body with the fetus's right to survive and deciding that the fetus's rights were more important than hers?
What I mean there is that it cannot really be described, from a social moral standpoint, as the rights of the fetus being protected. It's just coincidence in that case that it was.
------
Vyrus,
quote:These "legal rights" for fetuses (feti?) business is largely unnecessary.
Yes, we've moved past that aspect of the discussion. Though I should note that what you said is not exactly true. There are penalties for harming a fetus in some cases, it's just that abortion is not one of those cases.
quote:Whether or not a baby has "moral rights" would depend on what the mother and others immediately within that situation felt about "moral rights".
Well, that's not true at all. Just because someone says someone(or thing) else does or doesn't have a moral right to something doesn't make it true. I could say that I've got a moral right to that $20 bill in your pocket, and I could maybe even get the people living with you to agree. So in that case, fork it over!
quote: In simpler terms, it doesn't matter what we feel about the right or wrongness of abortion-with the current legal climate, the only thing that really matters is how the mother feels about it, because the baby can't really do anything about it anyway, no matter how much it deserves to live.
Or if at all. Just trying to keep things civil. Obviously I think it does have a right to live. Aside from that, though, my question is: what's your point? That last paragraph was pretty...well, obvious.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you may have a misunderstanding of "Moral rights" The term "morality" is relative to the individual and your $20 bill argument has validity. This moral perspective justifies the drug dealer or thief who is, "just trying to survive." It is my right because MY morality says it ok. I know nowadays you can't say "God given rights" so I'll use the semantic tool common to relativists. Instead of moral rights we should focus on inalienable rights or human rights. Does a child have a right to live? Then we need to define child. That's the rub. When is the fetus a human? Is it when we, with our science can keep it alive? We are letting science determine for us what is and what is not. Knowing that we can keep a child born three months early proves to us it is human. I suppose we will justifiably outlaw abortions past 6 months. What happens when we have the technology to salvage a 3 week fertalized egg and grow it to birth? Is our definition of life dependent upon our medical technology?
Saying the baby is not viable as a justification for termination will increasingly become invalidated. The earliest medical science.... someone to cut and tie the cord. If that person decided not to tie the cord is the "fetus" not viable and the concience clear for its death. Is a baby without breast milk or shelter not viable. Without the mother's interference it will die anyway. Only natural. Where do we draw the line.
posted
Please, please tell me how I'm wrong about such a subjective idea as 'moral rights'. Such presumption.
quote:We are letting science determine for us what is and what is not.
Yeah, science always gets in the way.
quote:Knowing that we can keep a child born three months early proves to us it is human.
No it doesn't. And that's coming from someone with a position, I'm reluctant to acknowledge, probably shares many things with your own.
quote:Is our defenition of life dependent upon our medical technology?
Our definition of life doesn't have much relevance in the real world when it is beyond our means to save it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is morality is relative and one could argue that allowing the alive baby to feed from the breast is interference. Without the mother's interference in this manner, the baby will die. Quite naturally of starvation.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have an example that might contribute to this conversation. About a year ago I saw in the news a young couple fed their newborn nothing but soy milk from infancy. This baby was deprived of the proper nutrients and then died after maybe a month or two of life. Does anyone remember this story?
The arguments from the couple was they were vegan and didn't believe in feeding their baby dairy-based formulas, and for whatever reason didn't believe in breast feeding, or perhaps because the mother was malnourished herself, her milk wasn't coming in very well (speculation- since I can't remember why they weren't breast feeding). They were tried and prosecuted for murder of their own child. Their moral compass suggested to enforce their lifestyle on a being very much alive and who had no ability to object, even when their lifestyle was the means of the infant's death.
So, they exercised their moral rights over their child, which led to its death and were prosecuted as the murderers they are. What's the difference between the choices they made for their baby after birth, and someone's decision to exercise their moral compass to have the pregnancy terminated because they didn't think it was right to raise a child in such a dangerous place and got pregnant on accident, or of someone who was simply careless with birth control and decided they didn't want to be parents yet, or found out the guy would leave her if she had the baby, or any number of reasons people give for having an abortion?
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sincerely doubt the accuracy of your story beleaguered. There commonly available soy based infant formulas. I have a nephew who was allergic to everything else and so was fed only soy formula as a baby and thrived.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In that case I'll have to research the story for you. I not only listened to the story on two different news radio shows, but saw this particular story on TV on a short blurb with the news. I know it exists, as to the particulars . . . It's been about a year, so I remember what I remember. I'll try to find the story for you. I should know when I find it, since I remember seeing them sitting in court.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't understand "happy coincidence". What about it is happy as far as society is concerned?
Hmm. I'm not sure if I've ever discussed abortion in exactly this way, so I apologize for any lack of clarity. When I said 'happy coincidence' I meant that in the situation we were discussing - a woman deciding to carry a pregnancy to term even though she personally didn't want to be pregnant - from society's perspective, looking at the issue of any kind of fetal rights, it is only a bit of good luck that the right of the fetus was protected. The fetus was just lucky that the mother decided to carry it to term, no more, no less.
Does that make any sense?
quote:And what is coincidental about a woman weighing her right to her body with the fetus's right to survive and deciding that the fetus's rights were more important than hers?
What I mean there is that it cannot really be described, from a social moral standpoint, as the rights of the fetus being protected. It's just coincidence in that case that it was.
I think that I see what you are saying. I wouldn't consider it luck but instead a woman making a sacrifice and deciding to give up her rights.
Also (not just to Rakeesh) it is not just a question of the humanity of the fetus. Even if you decide that the fetus is a person and deserving of life, there is still the question of whether that person has a right to "use" another person's body to stay alive. We don't grant that right to anyone else. If my hypothetical child needed my kidney - or even a bone marrow transplant, the law does not require me to provide it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Posted by Rabbit: I sincerely doubt the accuracy of your story beleaguered. There commonly available soy based infant formulas. I have a nephew who was allergic to everything else and so was fed only soy formula as a baby and thrived.
Here you go, I found the story I was looking for, and it was apparently closer to two years ago, but Here it is.Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
This article was actually very easy to find. The story says they fed their baby nothing but fruit juices and soy products, but if I remember correctly (so far my memory has done alright), they mostly fed their baby soy milk, not soy formula. There are several credible sources for this story, in case you would like more than the one.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: In that case I'll have to research the story for you. I not only listened to the story on two different news radio shows, but saw this particular story on TV on a short blurb with the news. I know it exists, as to the particulars . . . It's been about a year, so I remember what I remember. I'll try to find the story for you. I should know when I find it, since I remember seeing them sitting in court.
Google is our friend. From the very first link that came up:
quote: Fulton prosecutor Chuck Boring said the verdict isn't a condemnation of veganism, a strict form of vegetarianism that doesn't allow the consumption or use of animal products. Instead, jurors believed prosecutors' assertions that the couple intentionally neglected and underfed the child and then tried to use the lifestyle as a shield.
quote:My point is morality is relative and one could argue that allowing the alive baby to feed from the breast is interference. Without the mother's interference in this manner, the baby will die. Quite naturally of starvation.
One could make that argument, it's true. But it's a stupid argument, easily handled. I very much doubt even you don't already know that.
Oh, and if morality is subjective, how can I be wrong about an idea of moral rights, exactly? *rolleyes*
quote:does this mean we shouldn't kill it if it at that point it is within our means to save it.
That's my personal opinion, yes.
-------------
quote:Even if you decide that the fetus is a person and deserving of life, there is still the question of whether that person has a right to "use" another person's body to stay alive. We don't grant that right to anyone else. If my hypothetical child needed my kidney - or even a bone marrow transplant, the law does not require me to provide it.
Well, if it's a person and deserving of life, then certainly circumstances should be taken into account, yes? In this case circumstances being the person didn't invade the woman's body but rather was created by her and one other party in it.
If you were to somehow engineer a situation in which your hypothetical child had to have a bone marrow transplant from you in order to survive, but then you didn't give it...well, that's really not the same thing at all as not being required to give it out of nowhere.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If you were to somehow engineer a situation in which your hypothetical child had to have a bone marrow transplant from you in order to survive, but then you didn't give it...well, that's really not the same thing at all as not being required to give it out of nowhere.
Okay. Say the child needed a transplant because we were in a car accident. I was driving and the accident was due to my carelessness. The law still would not force me to donate.
In my opinion, I certainly have a moral obligation to do so but the law does not require it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember the story from the news too. For some reason wheat grass water comes to mind as to what they were feeding the baby.
I found a couple of links. Looks like there were two cases, one in which the couple followed a raw foods diet and another in which the couple fed soy milk and apple juice. http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet-veganbaby.htmlPosts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I sincerely doubt the accuracy of your story beleaguered. There commonly available soy based infant formulas. I have a nephew who was allergic to everything else and so was fed only soy formula as a baby and thrived.
I have a son who was allegic to all else but rice milk.
quote:I have a son who was allegic to all else but rice milk.
He's doing fine.
Impossible!
---
quote:Okay. Say the child needed a transplant because we were in a car accident. I was driving and the accident was due to my carelessness. The law still would not force me to donate.
Even then the situation isn't quite analogous because after all, the need created goes back further in the case of pregnancy. Unlike driving carelessly, in the case of pregnancy there is no chance whatsoever that the need for your 'kidney' won't exist.
Despite that, though, I do see your point. My point in response is that the law in such a case is wrong, and should be changed. In many ways, most of them proactive.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
