Should a foetus have rights?

[Bubbles]

Some people think it does and should have and that life starts at conception.

I wonder how they would deal with this?

Malaysian teenager has twin's foetus removed from stomach

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36376079

How aware is a foetus ?

Nature can be horrible 

 

[Shaker]

No, I don't buy into a foetus having rights.

Certainly not before around 23 weeks, which on the best current evidence we have is about the time that a foetus becomes sentient. I don't see the point in extending rights to something which is literally incapable of sensation and thus incapable of being the subject of a life that can go well or worse for said subject.

[floo]

No foetus should have rights until it is viable.

[Brownie]

This is really a grim story Rose.  Certainly in cases like that one, any rights a foetus may have must be superceded by the rights of the person housing it.   There was no alternative but to remove the foetus from this young man, it wasn't alive even in the way a baby is alive, though it had apparently grown.  It was no different from a tumour.

The poor boy must have been quite traumatised by it all, I'm glad at least his name wasn't published.

I'd say up to 23 weeks by date (which in this country generally means 21 weeks gestation), the rights of the parent are more important than that of the foetus.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

This case is that of a foetus in fetu. The removal of such a being is not usually considered to be an abortion as such, since the undeveloped twin has no prospect of developing into a baby. Accordingly there is relatively little controversy surrounding the same, unlike the wider abortion debate.

[Harrowby Hall]

I think the original article is a little loosely written and confuses the terms "embryo" and "foetus". The developing organism does not become a foetus until it is twelve weeks old. And also (as in the OP) is it right to call the organism "the twin's foetus" rather than, say, "a foetus which could have become a twin"?

I recall reading somewhere that until about 1850 or so, the official line of the RC church was that the soul did not enter the foetus until about four months. This then changed to the current teaching that the soul enters at the moment of conception.

Clearly, there must have some reason for this implacable opponent of abortion to think in this way. Had the church not changed its teaching then, presumably, it would have no objection to early term abortion.

I admit that I do not like the idea of abortion but would uphold the right of any woman to undergo such a procedure should she feel it necessary. I think it more productive to consider an embryo to have the potential to develop into a human being rather than giving it "human rights". By the time the embryo has become a foetus the situation is more difficult. If it has reached the stage where it has a functioning sensory nervous system then abortion will almost certainly involve pain and suffering.

We should not forget that the most active abortionist of all is nature ...

[Brownie]

I concur with what you said HH. 
Current belief is that a foetus does not feel pain until 26 weeks (or 24 weeks if you are an American).  The majority of abortions take place well before that.

The article about the removal of the baby developing, up to a point, inside the body of it's twin can't be considered in the same way.  As you said, it wouldn't have lived.  It's quite a macabre story but I have heard of such things before, except not of a case where the baby has grown at all, it has only been a tiny foetus.

[Owlswing]

Should a foetus have rights?

Unequivocally NO! Not until it is viable outside of the  mother's womb and that standard will differ from mother to mother and from foetus to foetus.

Until that time the mother's health and wishes should take absolute precedence.

[ProfessorDavey]

I recall reading somewhere that until about 1850 or so, the official line of the RC church was that the soul did not enter the foetus until about four months. This then changed to the current teaching that the soul enters at the moment of conception.

Regardless of whether there is a 'soul' etc the notion that anything happens 'at the moment of conception' is deeply muddled thinking, because conception, or rather fertilisation, is a process not an instantaneous event, so you'd need to be far more specific - in other words to define at what point during that process this supposed event (soul entering) occurs. And then, of course, you'd need to justify your assertion.

[Harrowby Hall]

Regardless of whether there is a 'soul' etc the notion that anything happens 'at the moment of conception' is deeply muddled thinking, because conception, or rather fertilisation, is a process not an instantaneous event, so you'd need to be far more specific - in other words to define at what point during that process this supposed event (soul entering) occurs. And then, of course, you'd need to justify your assertion.

It is not my assertion. I am not advocating the view of the RCC merely reporting it.

[floo]

After a foetus is viable and it is necessary for the sake of the mother's health, physical or mental to remove it, steps should be take to try to keep it alive.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

After a foetus is viable and it is necessary for the sake of the mother's health, physical or mental to remove it, steps should be take to try to keep it alive.

That leads on to the separate argument about "Post Birth" Abortion.

[floo]

That leads on to the separate argument about "Post Birth" Abortion.

The life of the mother is more important than that of the foetus until it is actually born.

[Brownie]

I agree about the life of the mother.  I've no wish to tell horror stories and we all know that late abortions are extremely rare, but in such cases nowadays an injection is given to the baby so they feel no pain.  It all sounds grim but people do make a big thing out of the baby feeling pain - even in early abortions when the nervous system is not developed.  I can even remember being told that at school - at least that it was possible the foetus felt pain when an abortion was performed by the vacuum suction method.  It was very distressing to hear and imagine.

[Hope]

In view of the many references to viability in preceing posts, what are folks' views on the opinion, expressed by the Royal College of Midwives recently, that there should be no limits on when an embryo/foetus/baby can be aborted?

[Shaker]

My understanding is that that opinion was voiced by the chief executive of the RCM as an individual rather than it being an official stance of the organisation as a whole, and that a lot of members are extremely unhappy that she made a statement that looks as though it represents the organisation without consulting the membership, since many of them disagree with her stance.

[Hope]

My understanding is that that opinion was voiced by the chief executive of the RCM as an individual rather than it being an official stance of the organisation as a whole, and that a lot of members are extremely unhappy that she made a statement that looks as though it represents the organisation without consulting the membership, since many of them disagree with her stance.

My understanding is that it was an official opinion, which may or may not be put to a vote by members of the RCM.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

My understanding is that that opinion was voiced by the chief executive of the RCM as an individual rather than it being an official stance of the organisation as a whole, and that a lot of members are extremely unhappy that she made a statement that looks as though it represents the organisation without consulting the membership, since many of them disagree with her stance.

Anybody sufficiently aggrieved should table a motion of no confidence to that body's next annual conference, where the matter would be debated by those whose opinions matter the most, the membership. IMHO this is an internal matter for the RCM.