Quote:
Quote by: Castle  Somehow, I guessed as much. By doing such, you accomplish naught but adding to the length of this discussion:( |
Really? Were you honestly asking for an opinion, or did you have an agenda of your own when you asked your questions? Somehow, I find the "honest curiosity" possibility to be unlikely.
You asked for a response, and you got a response. If you didn't like the response, then reexamine your questions.
Quote:
Quote by: Castle So, for instance, the mother's right to privacy ends when the fetus' right to life is infringed? |
That would be the case, except the fetus has no rights. The mother is the established person, already with inherent rights; the fetus is the interloper, and so has less claim to the body in question.
If there were a way to maintain both the rights of the mother, and the potential rights of the fetus, that would be the optimal situation. But if that is not possible, then the woman's rights are preeminent.
Quote:
Quote by: Castle And two minutes before birth? At what point to do you draw the line? |
The point at which the fetus is unquestionably viable and giving birth would not put the mother at undue risk -- provided the mother has had reasonable opportunities to have an abortion prior to that point. I don't think unquestionable viability can be given a specific date; I would assume the point is not fixed. It should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Quote:
Quote by: Castle Quote: |
Quote by: CS But if you want to make this shades-of-gray issue into a black and white one, there it is: infant that depends on its mother has no rights; infant that could be cared for by anyone has rights. | Why? |
First, because the Constitution does not specify conception as the point when rights are granted or enforceable, but it does imply birth as such a point. Second, because the mother's rights are preeminent, as I said above. Third, because a fetus's rights cannot be enforced, because its right to liberty cannot be protected: it cannot be released from the womb.