I raised an eyebrow of interest after reading that a Florida woman, six months pregnant, was court-ordered to stay in the hospital against her own will. The woman had smoked throughout her pregnancy, and after a premature labor scare, her doctor got a judge to rule that she must stay in the hospital. This was not for her protection, but to protect the baby, which had not been born.
All the hours I had spent shadowing doctors and physicians, all the information I had gathered in my pre-medical studies, began to flow into my mind, encompassing one single question — what happened to patient’s autonomy or even the bill of rights? Even from my perspective as a patient, having been through numerous surgeries and treatments, I take comfort in the fact that I can refuse treatment if I do not want it, regardless of what my doctor suggests. But here was this woman, losing out to someone that hadn’t even been registered as a citizen of the country, let alone born.
Samantha Burton was ordered to stay in the hospital and consequently became, as her lawyer David Abrams described, “nothing more than a fetal incubator owned by the state of Florida.” Burton could not even leave the hospital or seek care from somewhere else. She was supposed to sit there, keep quiet and make a baby. She was a woman who was denied her personal autonomy by an authoritative power and forced to provide someone else’s version of prenatal care.
If an argument was proposed that supported the court’s decision, the most popular, rightwing response would be something like this: That woman was leading an unhealthy lifestyle while the fetus was completely helpless. The court order helped the woman from possibly killing her unborn child. So by this notion, when a woman gets an abortion, she is a murderer.
That is all good, but my question is this: when a woman miscarries, by the same logic, shouldn’t she be subsequently charged with manslaughter? Let me remind the readers the definition of manslaughter is the killing of someone without premeditation or intention. I’m sure taxpayers don’t mind building a few more penitentiaries to put those evildoers away.
A version of this article appeared in the Feb 23 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 30 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
First of all, yes, abortion is murder because it violates our right to life stipulated in our founding documents and recanted from ancient to modern western civilization. The fetus, and one especially at six months, is a human being that owns its own life, the mother does not own it. When a mother decides to abuse her natural, biological mandate to carry children at such a late stage in gestation to the extent that it violates the fet...you know what, let's stop the amoral medical terminology, it's a human being at 6 months...so when the mother tries to violate its child's natural right to life, the state as protector of our liberties, steps in and does what is necessary to protect the human being.
Also Josh, I find it interesting in your quest for women's right to choose, that your own mother chose life. You think that because it's legal, that it's also moral and ethical (and I am talking about non religious morality here) to do so, in that case, capital punishment must be moral and ethical because it's legal...maybe the income tax...I could go on.
Reply to this Top
Ok, abortion is murder - what do you charge the mother with? Should she go to jail for 1st degree murder, since it was premeditated? Should a woman who miscarries be charged with manslaughter? That was main point of the article that you failed to respond to; instead spouting off the same anti-abortion talking points we've all heard a thousand times.
Reply to this Top
A miscarriage isn't an abortion, it's a...you know, a miscarriage. I'll let you answer the question, if you take away life, a natural right that each of us owns, from another human being and are party to the facilitation of that act, what is it called then? Remember this is a woman in her 6th month of pregnancy.
Top
But what if the mother miscarries because of reckless actions? I don't believe abortion is murder, so if you want my answer it's that abortion shouldn't be a crime in the first place. Now I'll let you answer.
Top
J read my comment on the bottom so you can get a perspective.
Top
First of all babies have no rights until they are born.
Even if they did the fact of the matter is that the woman and baby share a body. I think the person who has established a life should be given primary concern. That is to say, the mother.
I do not agree that merely based on age the baby should be given primary care. If you follow that logic then we begin to set the stage for depriving the elderly of care for the sake of the young. And where do we draw the line?
It is important to remember that in this case we have one body being shared by two. This makes all the difference. You cannot hold a person captive because they are not treating their body the way you want it. There is no law stating you cannot smoke or drink while pregnant, only recommendations.
If babies were legitimate human beings with rights before birth then why don't we write up document stating as much? What happens to women who are unaware that they are pregnant? And ultimately, this is inconsistent with our current laws regarding abortion. If you can abort a child you can sure as duck smoke with it inside you.
Reply to this Top
"...so when the mother tries to violate its child's natural right to life..."
The mother wasn't TRYING to violate her child's right to life, she was simply exercising her right to live her own as she chooses. It's a little grayer than that. (I'm not saying I have the answer, just requesting you to clarify/rephrase that point.)
I think this is really just a "what if" kind of situation. Take for instance that I can drink myself to death if I choose. I can't go out and drive in a drunken state though because suddenly I'm compromising other lives.
Legally, it comes down to when we define life to begin. If it's a six months then I guess legally maybe she shouldn't be allowed to smoke/drink/etc. since it compromises what is now considered a life.
Shoot. I don't know. Just my two cents.
Reply to this Top
that 2nd paragraph is a huge leap
Reply to this Top
According to federal law, abortion is NOT murder. You are incorrect. While you may interpret the Constitution differently, the Supreme Court is the authority here.
Reply to this Top
Morality has no place in law written only law being written.
If they put a woman on trial for murder after an abortion it should be automatic innocent. The judge can't say it is morally wrong and therefore you're guilty.
You don't have to be souless to understand law and morality are very seperate entities and should be treated as such.
Reply to this Top
Morality has no place in law? Are you nuts? No wonder this country is going to crap. You can't differentiate between religious and non-religious morality? OF COURSE morality has an impact on governance, why the hell was slavery abolished? Because men are born free and slavery was counter to our fundamental right to freedom, it was immoral to take away their rights. You can't place these time constraints on whether or not morality has a basis in law (already written vs being written). Morality has huge implications on legal structure, just because you aren't religious, doesn't mean you can't have a sense of morality or immorality in the public/legal sphere.
Reply to this Top
Matthew 16:19 states: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." People make the laws that govern what people do. The authority comes from God. If we (people) decide that abortion is an acceptable choice in our society, then it becomes the law of both heaven and earth.
Top
That argument demonstrates two things: First, how arrogant Americans can be. Second, how stupid religion can be. America is not the only country on Earth, and in some other countries abortion is illegal. So how do the heavens decide which set of law to adopt? Or is there a separate American heaven and Canadian heaven?
Top
You agreed with me and were angry with me? Slavery was abolished, I.E. a law was removed because it was deemed immoral. So my statement stands, morality should be present when writing new laws, amending existing laws, or abolishing laws.
Were women allowed to vote while the amendment was being written or after it passed? If a woman voted before that law was written would the courts have ruled in her favor based on morals?
I never brought religion into anything either so stow that, I am not religious in any manner of speaking.
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
Wow, I thought a socially liberal, non-religious pro-lifer would get some sort of mature response. Guess even we get called "Hitler" for our views.
Reply to this Top
ANONA is obviously intelligent enough to realize that Hitler is far right wing
/sarcasm
Top
How about natural law? In the wild if a wolf is going to either die or lose its child, bye bye baby.
We are more civilized but the idea that the mother has no right to choose her own path is ridiculous. This case is an obvious abuse of law and the holding of someone against their will. Medical treatments can't be forced on someone.
Reply to this Top
"According to federal law.."
According to federal law, slavery was legal. I guess that made it moral. Let's flip it, according to federal law, consumption of alcohol by minorities is illegal, I guess I'm going to hell for 5 years of pre-21 alcohol consumption.
Quit using federal law to guide your morality and develop your own conscience for once.
Reply to this Top
"Quit using federal law to guide your morality and develop your own conscience for once."
Exactly. The government shouldn't force one group's morals on everyone else. When life begins is a complex question, and it should be up to the individual to decide.
Reply to this Top
It's definitely the babies life, so it should have the right to decide. Oh but it can't, so if mama and doc come running with the vacuum and scalpel, the child becomes a ward and protectee of the state since it cannot defend itself.
Top
This is a slippery slope. When eating out, will pregnant women be forced to buy a meal that includes the majority of important nutrients, or be forced to eat broccoli? Or forbidden from eating beef that contains hormones or antibiotics? Will pregnant women be forced to exercise "appropriately" throughout the pregnancy? As a person and a mother, *I* make the decisions for my body and my unborn or born child. For the record, I occasionally consumed caffeine while I was pregnant. AFTER discussing it with my physician, reading the scientific literature on the subject, and making the right decision for ME. Should I have been hospitalized for introducing a not-so-healthy chemical into my bloodstream, or should my child have been taken away after he was born (completely healthy, of course)? That's the slippery slope we're heading toward.
When the government starts invading my privacy and taking away my decision-making abilities, then we're really headed toward tossing our civil rights in the trash can.
Reply to this Top
Well written article, Josh. You thought about the topic and used great examples to discuss a very important point. I agree with you that a woman is not just a vessel, but should be able to choose what to do with her body. Very impressive. I know you'll be a great doctor who will use logic and thought with each decision you make.
Reply to this Top
Actually,
if you people really took the time to consider this one could not give both individuals rights without conflicting with the other's because they ARE NOT individuals. The baby is an extension, practically an organ, of the mother. By affording the baby all the same rights of the mother you immediately negate her's.
For example, if the baby has a right to life, but the mother does to, and the mother has to take a drug to save her life that will ultimately harm/kill the baby then what do you do?
I will tell you. The mother gets to decide. The state has NO say in the matter because it cannot overstep the rights of the legitimate and established human being and her body. The state does not get to sacrifice her because it has a moral compunction.
Reply to this Top
@anonymous (February 23, 2010 @ 5:49 PM)
I like this and agree. So do we define a child to be an "organ" until birth? I think that's actually a fairly accurate description of a child in the womb. The issue is, an organ can't survive without a being to support it, after a certain point, a child can.
Reply to this Top
Sucks for the newborns who still can't survive outside of the womb and are placed in an incubator.
Reply to this Top
No it doesn't because they are recognized on paper as a human being and their rights no longer conflict with another human being's because they are not sharing a body.
Get a grip and start paying attention to the conversation.
Top
In the state of Virginia, that fetus isn't alive until the umbilical cord is cut. As evidenced by the woman who killed her own baby shortly after birth while it was still attached by the umbilical cord...and prosecutors cannot charge her with a crime at all. Under Virginia law, she only aborted her child.
Reply to this Top
Dear Josh;
First, I have to say that I technically agree with you. It's ridiculous that they were allowed to force her to stay in the hospital. But stop talking about pregnancy. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Reply to this Top
Fix Present,region now baby be married flight interesting choice credit living learn particularly democratic save characteristic familiar properly realise adult identify requirement brief university promote shot bright particular male commit road breath sister wonderful myself every minute risk date typical soil back world prison narrow set citizen growing quarter joint gentleman department sign nose possible traditional day her rain refer train neither hardly administration fail fight development own month apparent rapidly professional volume capacity claim touch file car importance somewhere paper interested religious throughout drug lead tonight thank desk
Reply to this Top