|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Most discussions of fetal rights relate to whether a woman should be able to request an abortion, and thus terminate the life of her fetus. But there are other situations where this balance of rights is important. Consider a woman who has decided to take her pregnancy to term, and yet is abusive to the fetus. Does the state have the right to forcibly take the woman into custody in order to prevent her damaging the fetus? A situation like this arose in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada in 1996-AUG. A 21 year old woman, D.G., was 5 months pregnant and hopelessly addicted to glue & solvent sniffing. She had previrth to three children; at least two of them were permanently harmed in the womb as a result of her addiction. They became wards of the state immediately after they were born. Social workers from Winnipeg Child and Family Services (CFS) had tried repeatedly to obtain help for the woman, but she had refused treatment. Once, she was willing to accept help, but there was none available at the time. Family Services applied for a court order to force her to spend the rest of her pregnancy in a medical facility. Their lawyer, Heather Leonoff, argued that a mother exposing her fetus to poison breached the standard of care that Canadian law requires of mothers-to-be. Mr. Phillips represented Ms. G. He argued that since a fetus is legally a non-entity under Canadian law, then there was no person being harmed by the poison, other than his client. In a controversial decision, Judge Schulman rejected both arguments. He ordered the woman to undergo a psychiatric examination. He reasoned that if she suffered from a psychiatric disorder than he could commit her to custody to be treated for addiction. He later rejected the psychiatric assessment and ordered that she be taken into the custody of social-welfare authorities. The Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned the Judge's order. Part of their argument was that any damage to the fetus would have been done in the first trimester, and she already was 5 months pregnant, near the end of her second trimester. They were also worried about the civil rights of Ms. G. She remained in the hospital voluntarily until she overcame her addiction. Both she and the fetus suffered a difficult withdrawal; both experienced seizures. CFS appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1996-OCT. 12 interest groups, representing religious denominations, women's rights groups, civil liberties organizations and native groups addressed the court. On 1997-OCT-31, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled by a 7 to 2 majority that nobody has the right to interfere with a woman's pregnancy against her will, even if her behavior threatens her fetus. It is perhaps ironic that the decision was handed down on Halloween. Madam Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote the decision for the majority. She stated: "The only law recognized is that of the born person. Any right or interest the fetus may have remains inchoate and incomplete until the birth of the child." She concluded that any attempt to forcibly treat a pregnant woman would violate "the most sacred sphere of personal liberty - the right of every person to live and move in freedom...A pregnant woman and her unborn child are one...To make orders protecting fetuses would radically impinge on the fundamental liberties of the mother - both as to lifestyle choices and as to where she chooses to live..." She expressed concern that if the state were found to have a right to interfere with a pregnancy then women who smoke cigarettes or who exercise strenuously might be the next to be taken into custody. This could cause the problem to be driven underground: pregnant women might refuse counseling and medical help out of fear of being confined; some might even resort to having an abortion in order to continue their addiction. "In the end, orders made to protect a fetus's health could ultimately result in its destruction." Judge McLachlin wrote that if "the unborn child is [considered] a legal person with legal rights" then all types of ramifications would result. For example: [bullet] A woman seeking an abortion might be countered by an injunction obtained on behalf of the fetus. [bullet] A drunk driver who causes an accident which kills a pregnant woman might be sued by her family for the death of the fetus. Carissima Mathen, a lawyer with the Women's Legal and Education and Addiction Fund agreed with the decision. She said: "It was a very serious case, a very grave case. I was surprised at how completely they appeared to agree with us. They grasped that this is an issue of fundamental rights for women." Mr. Justice John Sopinka and John Major issued a dissenting judgment, stating that intervention against the wishes of a pregnant woman should be possible if there is a reasonable probability that her behavior would cause "serious irreparable harm to the unborn child...In any event, this interference is always subject to the mother's right to end it by deciding to have an abortion...When a woman chooses to carry a fetus to term, she must accept some responsibility for its well-being and the state has an interest in trying to ensure the child's health." Jim Hughes, president of Campaign Life Canada, (a "pro-life group) called "on Parliament to immediately enact legislation to protect the most defenseless member of our human family - the pre-born child. It is a matter of scientific truth and fundamental justice." Ms. G has overcome her addiction, became pregnant again, and was married in 1997-NOV. She has become a born-again Evangelical Christian. Her child appears to not have been damage by his mother's addiction. He is thriving. The couple has withdrawn from the spotlight. The media, religious leaders, and others often emphasize uncompromising differences between pro-life and pro-choice beliefs. But, in reality, the two sides agree on almost everything: [bullet] An ovum is alive and contains human DNA. Thus, it is a form of human life. [bullet] An ovum is not a human person. [bullet] Similarly a spermatozoa is a form of life. [bullet] A spermatozoa is not a human person. [bullet] At or shortly after conception, a fertilized ovum is a form of human life. It is alive and has human DNA. [bullet] A pre-embryo is a form of human life. [bullet] An embryo is a form of human life. [bullet] A fetus is a form of human life. [bullet] A newborn baby is a form of human life. [bullet] A newborn baby is a human person. [bullet] Somewhere during the nine months between the ovum-spermatozoa stage and the newborn baby, human personhood begins. [bullet] After human personhood has begun, an abortion should not be allowed, except under very unusual circumstances, such as to save the life of the woman, or perhaps to avoid serious long-term injury to the woman. The only real differences between pro-lifers and pro-choicers involves two questions: [bullet] "When does human personhood begin?" [bullet] Most pro-lifers believe it happens at conception. [bullet] Most pro-choicers say that it happens later in pregnancy, or perhaps at birth. [bullet] "After personhood has begun, under which conditions is an abortion a moral choice?" [bullet] A small minority believe that an abortion is never a moral choice, even to save the life of the woman. [bullet] Some would limit abortions to cases where the woman's life was in danger. [bullet] Some would allow abortions in cases where the woman's health was seriously at risk and/or the risk of permanent disability is high. [bullet] Some would allow abortions in cases where conception occurred after rape or during an incestuous relationship. This essay describes various beliefs about when human personhood begins. [horizontal rule] Background: Life and personhood are two very different matters. The human ovum (egg) is already clearly alive when it enters the fallopian tubes, many hours or days before it has the opportunity to be fertilized. Women release one about each month between puberty and menopause - a few hundred in a lifetime. Almost all of these are destined to die and be ejected from the body. Unless a couple is having difficulty conceiving, very little thought is given to these hundreds of deaths. Although the ovum is a form of life, there is a consensus that it is not a human person. They only have the potential to join with a spermatozoon and -- depending on one's beliefs -- either immediately or eventually produce a human person. Hundreds of millions of male sperm are liberated during a typical sexual encounter. A few week's worth of ejaculations from a single male would theoretically provide sufficient sperm to double the earth's human population, if each were used to fertilize a separate ovum. Sperm are also clearly alive. Viewing them under a microscope reveals them to be energetic swimmers. Essentially all of these will die within days. Again, unless infertility is a problem, little attention is given to these deaths. An average man produces thousands of sperm a second. At most, a very few during his lifetime will contribute to the formation of a baby. The rest will die. Few men are consciously aware of the loss. Although sperm are very much alive and kicking, there is a consensus that they are not human persons; they are not human organisms. They only have the potential to join with an ovum and -- depending on one's beliefs -- either immediately or eventually produce a human person. [fovum.gif (6674 bytes)] The meeting of sperm and ovum often causes conception. When the first spermatozoa penetrates the wall of the ovum, a barrier is set up which almost inevitably prevents additional spermatozoa from entering. Shown here is a microphotograph of a typical, just-fertilized ovum. It has formed a new DNA sequence from the DNA contained in the original sperm and ovum. This also is a form of human life. It is considered by scientists to be the start of a new human organism. Many pro-lifers believe that it is also a human person. If all goes well, the single cell divides in two. This process of division continues. About 72 hours after conception, the embryo has reached the 7 cell-stage, shown here. (The embryo is in the center of the microphotograph, being held between two micro-pipettes.) Among women without an IUD, perhaps 50% of fertilized ova develop into a baby which is born some nine months later. Some of the rest are aborted. Others, because of genetic imperfections or other reasons, are lost by a miscarriage. Although the exact mechanism by which an IUD functions is not fully known, it seems that the device does not inhibit fertilization, but does prevent pregnancy from beginning by preventing the organism from being implanted in the womb. Thus, for women who use an IUD, almost all of the fertilized ova are expelled from the woman's body. A consensus exists that an infant is the most precious form of life on earth, and needs to be protected under law. The philosophical and religious principle behind the pro-choice/pro-life argument is: when does human personhood begin?. After that event occurs, terminating life is a form of murder which some people believe can never be justified. Others feel that an abortion can be a moral act if it is needed to prevent the death of the woman, or perhaps if it will prevent her permanent disability, or prevent extremely serious injury to her health. Some would also allow an abortion in cases of rape or incest. Still others feel that an abortion can be a moral act for other reasons. Unfortunately, there is no consensus of when human personhood starts. Science can tell us, with increasing detail, the processes that start with a sperm and ovum and end up with a newborn baby. But it cannot tell us: [bullet] Does the fetus have a soul? [bullet] When do the products of conception become a person? [bullet] Does a zygote have a full set of human rights? [bullet] Is an ovum and sperm a person? [bullet] Is abortion murder? These are questions with philosophical, religious and political aspects. Science cannot contribute a great deal towards resolving them. And because these questions have a religious component, there will always be a wide variety of beliefs among persons from different faith groups. Some indication of the lack of consensus is listed below: [bullet] Most people in the pro-life camp believe that human personhood happens at conception. That is, a just-fertilized egg (as shown in the image above) is a full human being and should be protected as such. The reasons for this belief vary: [bullet] Some pro-lifers hold this belief because of their religious faith. Their denomination or religion teaches that a soul enters the just-fertilized egg at the instant of conception. The cell becomes a human person at that time due the presence of the soul. The concept of a soul is a religious one; it cannot be located, weighed, seen, smelled, felt, measured, or otherwise detected by any known instrument or human sense. This argument is not particularly convincing to almost all Atheists, Humanists, many religious liberals, and others who do not believe that souls exist. It is also not convincing to those religious folk who believe that a soul enters the body later in gestation or even after birth. [bullet] Other pro-lifers point out that shortly after conception, a unique DNA code is formed which will remain unchanged through the life of the fetus, and after birth. Scientists define this event as the start of a human organism. They might define all human organisms as human persons. Specifically, they might believe that the presence of a unique DNA code converts the egg into a human person. But others disagree. A skin scraping of a child or adult contains a very large number of living, single cells; each has the same unique human DNA code as does the human from which it came. Scottish scientists have been able to start with a cell removed from the mammary tissue of a sheep, inject it into a sheep ovum whose DNA has been removed, and produce "Dolly," a new sheep who is genetically identical to her "parent." This same procedure has been replicated for many other mammals. It is likely that the same procedure can be used to clone a human. DNA from skin scraping, or from a swab of the inside of the mouth, or a hair follicle could be used to produce exact twins of the donor human. Wired Magazine for 2001-JAN predicted that a human clone would be born during the year 2001, even though it violated the medical ethic regulations and laws of many countries. As of early 2004, it still has not happened. It is unlikely to happen in the near future, because many cloned animals have developed defects later in life. Since a just-fertilized egg contains human DNA information as does a hair follicle, they presumably should both be given the same status. We don't consider hair follicles, skin scrapings or swabs from mouths to be a human person. Skeptics might argue that we should not look upon fertilized ova as persons either. [bullet] Almost everyone agrees that a newborn child is a human person. [The original version of this essay said that "everyone agreed." However, the author had overlooked Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton University, who believes that personhood only comes weeks after birth. He seems to be alone in this belief among professionals, although some aboriginal religious share his belief.] One can work backwards in time through the birth process, fetal development, embryo growth, and finally end up at the just-fertilized ovum: the start of a human organism. Prior to that point, there was no human organism; there was just an ovum and one very lucky sperm. Conception is the first point where a single, living human organism exists that has a good chance to grow and become a newborn. The just-conceived ovum is simply the earliest stage of human development; it is what human persons look like about 9 months before we are born. Again, skeptics would disagree. They would say that the DNA strand is the beginning of the process. One merely needs to extract one from a hair follicle or skin scraping, place it in the right environment (an ovum which is free of genetic material), implant it in a womb and watch it develop into a newborn.
Approximate Word count = 10954
Approximate Pages = 43.8
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|