Dependant on another for survival?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-13-2003
Dependant on another for survival?
22
Sun, 11-16-2003 - 9:02pm
The topic of whether the fetus' DNA is unique from its mother brought a question to mind. I've heard many PC people say that a fetus has no rights because it is dependant on another person for survival. But aren't newborn babies dependant on others for their survival? Of course, I know they don't need to be attached to the mother's body to survive, but they do impede the mother's "rights", if you will, in order to survive, don't they? Just curious to hear your thoughts, TIA.

Pages

Avatar for munchies
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-12-2003
Sun, 11-16-2003 - 9:21pm

Your title made me think of a different thing.

Kim mom to Brad, Matt, Emma, Sarah, and Meagan

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-11-2003
Sun, 11-16-2003 - 9:34pm
when i was PC I used this arguement often. it is a bunch of bull. newborns are just as dependant on others for thier suvrival as a fetus is, it is just that as a fetus it is only ONE person who can support it but after birth many can fill that need and it is not solely locked in on being the birth mother. oh, poor birth mother, she has a fetus growing in her that might mean she has to stop dyeing her hair,stop drinking,stop overworking, make her gain weight............let's just kill it becuase it is dependant on her and it is, after all, a CHOICE...not a child. grrrrrr

that is my take on it.My son is MUCH harder now that he is born than when i carried him inside. it was much easier when i was pregnant even though I was so sick.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-13-2003
Sun, 11-16-2003 - 11:01pm


I hadn't even thought about that aspect. I agree with you-many more of my so-called "rights" are interfered with since my children were born than when I was pregnant with them!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 11-17-2003 - 12:18am
I have the choice with a baby to give it to someone that wants to raise it.

I have the choice to not share the resources of my body. Before or after birth.

A child born alive has the right to love and sustanence. If I will not provide it, then someone else can. In letting someone else do so, I will have fullfilled my least responsibility to see it is provided.

I do not need to share my organs for anyone, for any reason. If you needed a set of lungs to live, and none were available, I do not need to hook myself to you so we can share mine. I could do so (were it possible) because I wanted to, entailing all the risks and lessening of my own life it entailed. But I would never think that I should by LAW be required to do so, because I am the only one compatible or capable of sharing with you.

Avatar for munchies
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-12-2003
Mon, 11-17-2003 - 7:44am
Then you have the responsibility to make sure that you do not become pregnant.

Kim mom to Brad, Matt, Emma, Sarah, and Meagan

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-05-2003
Mon, 11-17-2003 - 9:39am
I agree with you. All chidren are 'attached' to their parents for survival. As well, many elderly are attached to their children for survival. The infirmed and ill are attached to their parents usually. My question is this, when they become too burdensome for us, should we have the right to dispose of them? Absolutely not. My not having a USE for another is not reason to conveinantly discard them.

A.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-13-2003
Mon, 11-17-2003 - 9:39am


No, but then again you did not engage in a voluntary act which created my need to share your lungs in the first place. You have the ability not to have an unborn baby attached to you if you so choose. I would think that once you VOLUNTEERED to share your lungs with me, it would certainly be illegal or at least immoral of you to suddenly withdraw them and allow me to die before another means of my survival could be found.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-05-2003
Mon, 11-17-2003 - 9:41am
True, but if your actions and choices resulted in the creation of another human being, then you do have a responsiblity to that human being and their life. That should not include termination for the sake of conveinance.

A.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 11-17-2003 - 11:48pm
I always love that this serious procedure is always done for "convenience." It is as convenient an idea to hold in one's head as all PLers are self-righteous right-winged wife's of uzi-slingers (or uzi-slingers themselves.)

"It should not" is a personal rule. A rule I am happy for you to apply to you. I am happy for you to promote it.

*It should*, it being a decision to maintain or terminate a pregnancy, include a person's full attention to the issue at hand. It should be made by people who understand the full weight of all the issues, problems, joys, and sorrows. It is a decision that *should* be made by the person who will carry that embroyo/fetus/baby.

For you, that "It should not" should certainly apply. For me, it holds nothing. I do did not have my daughter for your reasons, nor do I currently carry a child for your reasons. I carry for mine, and mine alone.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 11-17-2003 - 11:57pm
As to my, or anyone's sexual activity, its's consequences or joys - none of your bees wax.

My body grows a complete new organ just for this purpose. I share the space inside my abdomen and house it in another organ. It is not like organ transplantation (as I did not infer that), it is whole-scale body terraforming. I donate the EVERYTHING for the entire event. I don't just donate an organ, I make one. And that is just the BEGINNING, the merest setting of the stage.

Pages