The only way to settle this issue, and other bordering issues such as embryonic stem cell research, is to define more clearly when human life begins. If it's considered a human life, then its right to live can outweigh other considerations, such as the privacy rights of the pregnant woman who is hosting a growing embryo or fetus.
I agree 100%. There is a void in law because today in law the only time an individual is considered to have rights is after birth. Politicians in general do not have the courage to venture into this area because of the difficult issues whch are affected.
And the only reasonable reasons to set a "specific period" is because it has become a determining factor for considering it to be a human life with guarantees of rights and protection from harm.
Agreed. If the fetus didnt develop into a living being in the womb then there would be no need to set any limitation and the woman can abort at any time.
Yes, and that's because not every baby developes at the same rate. This is why using a set number of weeks is not as good a guideline as using fetal viability as the standard. A fetus can be as old as 28 weeks and still not be ready to survive outside of the mother's womb. http://en.wikipedia....ation_in_growth
If there was a definitave and measurable way to measuring the development of a fetus, I would be all for it as a measure. However even if there was, the mother would need to constantly assess the development of the fetus to make sure she did not broach any limit on when abortion could take place based upon fetal development. IMV this is too onerous and a time period is a much clearer way to put limits around the abortion decision.
BTW, we should distinguish between fetal viability and at what point the fetus is considered an individual with rights. If significant milestones of human life are achieved, then IMV, the rights of the fetus must be considered even before fetal viablity.
And, you are certainly not yourself after you're dead and buried.
Oh but I am, and I (or my designate) have a right to my body and possetions after I'm dead.
What if it's in the interests of society as a whole (especially one with a desperate shortage of available organs) to have all available organs for donation? What is the interests of the family who want to deny any option to use one of the deceased's organs to save another life?
IMV, the interest of society do not overrule individual rights. IMV, The family (or whomever the person's beneficiary is) has the absolute right to do whatever they want with the body. If we allow the state to decide that its interest override individual rights, where does that end? Can the state take the persons financial assets because it is running a budget deficit because the state's need is greater? If the state has a great need for organs, IMV they should put the right incentives in place for the individual or the famly to voluntary transfer the organs.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson