May a mother be 'forced' to undergo a cesarean when medically appropriate?

[Torero]

There was a news item in the Dutch news that surfaced today and even when reading the title of it I was thinking of an important forgotten factor.

 

 

 

Doctors push for forced cesareans when lives are endangered

 

Two gynecologists and two judges are advocating for forced cesarean sections on pregnant women if the life or health of the child is at stake. They want a judge to intervene if the mother’s refusal to have a C-section puts her baby’s life in danger, RTL Nieuws reports.

The decision to undergo a cesarean section currently lies with the mother. The doctor’s hands are tied if she refuses, even when the baby is in danger. In the Erasmus MC in Rotterdam alone, this situation leads to two or three infant deaths a year. The figures for the Netherlands are unknown.

 

Gynecologists Tom Schneider [M] and Leontien van Ravestijn [sic; Leontien van Ravesteyn ] [F] and judges Cees de Groot [M] and Paul Vlaardingerbroek [M] are calling for more attention to the “interests of the fetus in a safe birth”. If a mother refuses a C-section in a dangerous situation, they want a judge to be called in.

 

The judge must come to the delivery room immediately     and give the go ahead for a cesarean. If there is no time, the doctor must be able to do an emergency surgery with the court approving it retroactively.

 

“It can not be that the interest of a full-term fetus contributes nothing, even if the mother’s refusal has no real basis”, they write.

 

Original article in Dutch - RTL Nieuws

 

There is of course another point of discussion, especially considering voluntaryism; if judges may intervene in personal choices, but that is for this topic a secondary point.

 

I was discussing this on a Dutch forum and I was the first one to bring up the factor "father" (vader in Dutch, as in "Darth Vader", see Stefans review of the recent Star Wars movie).

 

In a parallel topic there was just 1 person who had the same idea, a woman actually .

Both my and her reactions were regarded with disbelief and taunt. The fiercest "defenders" of the "unique right of the mother to decide over what's in her belly" were... men. Both surprising (in my opinion) and not (considering the fierce feministic fantasy that has been propagandised in the country for decades).

 

My argument for the right of the father to have an equal say in the decision for incision is that a child is the result of the choice of two people together, not only the mother has the right to decide over life or death of the unborn (in case of cesareans we talk about fetal viability, other than abortion which is far earlier in the pregnancy).

 

I have brought up that if this inequality of rights is to be advocated, then the father is double (or triple) fucked (no pun intended) by 1) the hopelessly archaic system of alimony (installed in times when women were not gaining household incomes like they are perfectly capable of today) and 2) the skewed allocation of the child(ren)'s custody in case of a divorce (mostly to the mother, not the father).

 

=============================

 

What's your view on this sensitive topic?

[dsayers]

My argument for the right of the father to have an equal say in the decision for incision is that a child is the result of the choice of two people together, not only the mother has the right to decide over life or death of the unborn

This is like saying that people who smoke crack hurt people other than themselves. When in fact the other people are responsible for their proximity to self-destructive people.

 

Like it or not, the process of human reproduction is a huge strain on the woman's body. Being pregnant is no different from having a disease in terms of the risks associated for the mother. Until birth occurs, and the resultant baby is able to survive without the mother host, it is a part of the mother's body, and therefore her property.

 

The man's responsibility is to choose a woman of quality, who would include his position in her decision based on the love and goals they share for their family and future.

 

I'm sorry if this sounds like white knighting, but it is the philosophically consistent position.

[algernon]

Should the father have a say so in what the mother eats during pregnancy, how much exercise she gets and if she takes the proper vitamins? What if the mother refuses to eat anything except fast food, that obviously wouldn't be ideal for the fetus. What about smoking? I knew a guy whose wife smoked during pregnancy, as her mother did with her and "she turned out fine". Does a judge order a diet change? I think if we are going to keep things consistent we have to look at other aspects, which to me seems obvious the father wouldn't have a say so in rather she has the C section or not. How would the father have equal say as the woman, if she doesn't want a C section and he says she should, who wins?

 

Of course the answer to this for the father is, impregnate someone of quality.

 

In regards to the actual story, they are trying to expand the power of the state, because 2 or 3 babies die from the mother refusing to have the C section? Do they not know? This sounds very arbitrary. If it is 2 or 3, what percentage is that of the total births? I don't know about Rotterdam, but in the states C sections are big business and is a giant scam, almost 50% of births are from C sections, where as it being medically necessary is in the single digits percentage wise.

[Susana]

Calling in a judge to force a surgery on a 9 month pregnant woman who does not want surgery but who does presumably wants the child since she did not abort for example?....

 

Why is the baby life in danger? Who decided this and how? The bigger question is WHY there are so many cesarean births?

Are women being given any natural or holistic options? Why would an expensive surgery be the best solution?

Cesareans are already over half of the births in many places in the United States.

 

I'm glad you brought up the issue or men and fathers but I am just mostly horrified at judges forcing women to have surgery. I mean pregnant women are already being pushed into cesareans for all sorts of reasons like "convenience", larger fees, gestational diabetes, doctors convenience etc.

 

Edited to add these two links:

Here are two articles, The first one is from 2014, an article about Miami-Dade with cesarean births at 49% of births, it goes into medicaid costs and other points relating to the trend. The second article is a graph over time from 1989 until 2013 of cesareans. vbac (vaginal birth after cesarean) increasing so that as of 2013 in the United States cesareans are about 30% of births.

http://wlrn.org/post/miami-dade-moms-among-highest-c-section-rates

http://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10554

[Wuzzums]

We can't override biology. Like Dsayers said, until birth she should get the definitive vote on what happens to the fetus. If the society makes the father fully responsible for the child after birth then it is indeed an immoral situation. In such a case

 

I don't see why a father shouldn't have a definitive say in what happens to the child during pregnancy also. A man is responsible for his property, and if he's made (unequally) responsible for the child then that implies the child is his property. If the child is his property then it means the fetus is also his property. If the mother denies the father his right to end the abortion then it's a breach of contract basically. She denies the fact that it's his property thus the right of ownership is bestowed upon her fully, thus the father has no more responsibility for the child before and after the birth.

[Torero]

This is like saying that people who smoke crack hurt people other than themselves. When in fact the other people are responsible for their proximity to self-destructive people.

 

I think that's not a very good comparison as there are not three parties involved who have a say on a new life, like there is in case of father, mother and child.

 

 

 

Like it or not, the process of human reproduction is a huge strain on the woman's body. Being pregnant is no different from having a disease in terms of the risks associated for the mother.

 

I do not dispute that at all. But just in that case a set of knowledgeable doctors can give a sound advice to the mother. And my objection is around the situation that father says "Please, let our child come in this world" while the mother says "I do not want anyone to cut open my belly, so let this fetus be unborn". If both parents agree to not have the baby, it should not be forced upon them by doctors and less judges.

 

 

 

Until birth occurs, and the resultant baby is able to survive without the mother host, it is a part of the mother's body, and therefore her property.

 

That's a funny definition of property rights. That would mean an inseminated mother with the fetus of two other people (in case the woman cannot hold her pregnancy or in case of gay couples or so) is the property owner of a child which is not hers in the first place and can decide what to do with it whatever she wants.

 

 

 

The man's responsibility is to choose a woman of quality, who would include his position in her decision based on the love and goals they share for their family and future.

 

Also this I don't dispute but there may well be situations that a decent, loving woman during (and because of) her pregnancy starts to make irresponsible and irrational decisions that hurt two other people who cannot be disregarded; the voiceless fetal viable (so willing to live!) upcoming child and the father. Especially considering the hormonal effects of pregnancy.

 

 

 

I'm sorry if this sounds like white knighting, but it is the philosophically consistent position.

 

See my example of the surrogate mother. In your definition of property rights, you say that she (and only she!) is the "owner" of the unborn child and (thus) may decide what to do with it, no matter what the two biological parents have to say.

 

I have a different position on property rights and do not agree with your claim on "the philosophically 'consistent' position". My stance is that both father and mother have property rights in case of childbirth, not only after the baby is born.

 

I would not ad hominem a "white knight" to you, as you explain where you're coming from. I just see property rights differently.

 

Calling in a judge to force a surgery on a 9 month pregnant woman who does not want surgery but who does presumably wants the child since she did not abort for example?....

 

Yes, the judge part I disagree with too. It would give horrible situations if judges and not doctors in collaboration with one of the property holders (the father) would have the right to decide on life or non-life.

 

 

 

Why is the baby life in danger? Who decided this and how? The bigger question is WHY there are so many cesarean births?

Are women being given any natural or holistic options? Why would an expensive surgery be the best solution?

Cesareans are already over half of the births in many places in the United States.

 

Really?? I am shocked. I am not someone who asks for sources and links as then a discussion end up in talking about links (which in my experience seldom lead to rational outcomes), so I take your word for it. But that's definitely an amazingly large number.

 

It may have to do with the obscene obesity that is widespread among certain social classes in the US? From first hand I do not know the country that well, but Texas (the fattest state at the time I was there, 10 years ago) was shocking.

 

 

 

I'm glad you brought up the issue or men and fathers but I am just mostly horrified at judges forcing women to have surgery. I mean pregnant women are already being pushed into cesareans for all sorts of reasons like "convenience", larger fees, gestational diabetes, doctors convenience etc.

 

I agree that the idea that judges should decide is philosophically (voluntaryism, property rights, etc.) a horrible thing, apart from the practical impossibilities (hence the smiley I added to the article), but indeed wanted to make the case for when mom says "NO!" and dad says "Yes, please!".

 

Are there "larger fees" for cesareans? Really? That's terrible. And doctors convenience? Is an hours long operation done by doctors not less convenient than if the woman does the job in the natural way? Again this may be a difference between US and Holland...?

[Torero]

Mellomama, thank you for the clarification and I understand now better where this request is coming from. 25,000 dollars??

 

In Holland childbirth at home is very normal and I remember when I lived and worked there in a multinational company that foreign colleagues were shocked by that.

 

I guess they forgot that children being born "at home" was the standard for some 150.000-millions of years... (depending on where you draw the line in the species Homo)

 

 

 

Holland has excellent pregnancy and birth care, so no it's nowhere close to the troubles happening in the US

 

Always knew "we" should never have 'traded' New Amsterdam for Suriname + 1 dollar...

 

 

 

and Latin America in particular.

 

Brr, I am not very comfortable then... Maybe better let a future baby be born in Holland then...

[WorBlux]

“It can not be that the interest of a full-term fetus contributes nothing, even if the mother’s refusal has no real basis”, they write.

 

You may have your (sixish) pound(s) of  flesh but not a drop of blood.  A mother is not a slave.

[Mister Mister]

(I started writing this before Mellomama and others beat me to the punch and spoke with more knowledge and confidence, but here's my two cents anyway)

not an exact answer to the OP, but there is a strong argument that most women should not give birth in hospitals.  modern medicine is good with emergencies and catastrophes and trauma, but childbirth is a normal experience and should not be treated like an emergency, the way it is in a hospital, except in extreme situations of course.  as a result, childbirth ends up being way more traumatic than it needs to be, at the cost of the mother-child bond.  I'm totally speculating, but I would guess that Cesareans may be necessary in extreme circumstances, but are way over-prescribed due to the litigious nature of American medicine, and the rent-seeking monopolies that tend to hide costs.

I don't know much about the subject, I'm basically just repeating an argument that I've heard, but just wanted to mention that.

Here's more on the subject if you're interested.

[Torero]

Interesting becomes if the non-aggression principle is introduced in the discussion.

 

I searched for a definition on the forum and found this recent topic but I missed an FDR-definition (Mike, an idea to have a "glossary section"/topic on terms and definitions used in the discussions; UPB, NAP, r vs K, and some thousands others?), so I will use the one on Wikipedia:

 

 

 

The principle asserts aggression is always an illegitimate encroachment upon another individual's life, liberty, or property, or attempt to obtain from another via deceit what could not be consensually obtained. For example, the NAP prohibits the initiation of force by one individual or group of individuals against another individual or group of individuals.

 

Let's take the (not so?) hypothetical case as follows:

 

Decent moral not-led-by-religion loving pair of parents

Woman is pregnant, a wanted pregnancy by both parties

Complications in the latest stage of pregnancy arise

Doctors are advising to have a C-section if not the unborn child will have severe physical handicaps in life

 

Man follows the advice of the doctors and urges his wife/girlfriend to have a C-section

Woman decides she does not want to risk a C-section

 

Obviously the physical action of forcing the woman to have a C-section is a violation of NAP.

But what about the action to the child, which is evenly so physical in nature by refusing the C-section and the child suffering from handicaps?

And what about forcing the father to have a child that suffers from those handicaps?

 

Whose violation of the NAP is correct?

 

According to dsayers the question is simple; the unborn child is the woman's property and so violating her rights is the initiation of force thus a violation of NAP. Doctors, child and father all are irrelevant until the baby is delivered.

 

According to me it is not so simple; there are multiple parties and each party suffers from a violation of NAP in this case:

 

A - the woman decides; no C-section and the child is born the natural way but suffers from severe life-long complications

 

- the father is forced to see also his child suffer from handicaps - violation of NAP (property)

- the mother is forcing herself a painful vaginal delivery - no violation of NAP on her own, yet on the other parties (person & property)

- the child is forced to live with handicaps - violation of NAP (person)

 

B - the man and doctors decide: a C-section and the child does not suffer from handicaps

 

- the father is forcing his partner to have a C-section - violation of NAP (person)

- the mother is forced to have her belly cut open - violation of NAP (person)

- the child's physical health is forcing his mother to suffer from a heavy operation - violation of NAP (person), yet does not suffer from handicaps

 

If it would all be a simple 1+1+1 "game", then stance A would "gain"; only 2 persons NAP are violated and 2 properties.

 

But I don't see it that simple or black and white.

 

Also because the vaginal delivery may well be as "aggressive"/physically damaging on the mother herself or on her future abilities to ever have children again...

[algernon]

What handicaps might a child suffer from, that doctors could tell definitively would happen with a vaginal birth and be prevented with a C section? I'm not saying they don't exist, it just seems like a stretch for the basis of an entire argument.

 

If anything else less than certain is assured, wouldn't forcing a C section be the same as a pre-crime?

 

There are risks associated with either natural births or C sections, the evidence seems to point to a much greater risk with a C section, shouldn't the mother be allowed to make that choice?

 

This argument might be valid if the doctors were God, definitively knowing the outcome, but unfortunately they are wrong quite a bit, we shouldn't treat them as god.

[Guest Gee]

Like it or not, the process of human reproduction is a huge strain on the woman's body. Being pregnant is no different from having a disease in terms of the risks associated for the mother. Until birth occurs, and the resultant baby is able to survive without the mother host, it is a part of the mother's body, and therefore her property.

 

That is an interesting position, presumably then as technology progresses to allow for the survival of prematurely birthed babies so then the age at which babies can survive without the mother decreases and so the age at which the baby no longer being property decreases. 

Should there exist in the future an artificial womb in the future such that any baby of any age could survive at this point no babies would be considered property and you would be staunchly pro life?

[WorBlux]

...

 

According to me it is not so simple; there are multiple parties and each party suffers from a violation of NAP in this case:

 

A - the woman decides; no C-section and the child is born the natural way but suffers from severe life-long complications

 

- the father is forced to see also his child suffer from handicaps - violation of NAP (property)

- the mother is forcing herself a painful vaginal delivery - no violation of NAP on her own, yet on the other parties (person & property)

- the child is forced to live with handicaps - violation of NAP (person)

 

B - the man and doctors decide: a C-section and the child does not suffer from handicaps

 

- the father is forcing his partner to have a C-section - violation of NAP (person)

- the mother is forced to have her belly cut open - violation of NAP (person)

- the child's physical health is forcing his mother to suffer from a heavy operation - violation of NAP (person), yet does not suffer from handicaps

 

First within the NAP and aggression must be intentional (Simple negligence is not an aggression (though gross negligence arguably is))  If I don't scoop my side walk and someone slips and breaks a bone walking up to my door, that's not aggression, even though there may be good reason to believe I am obliged to make that person whole. (Weather this obligation may be forced or not is not spelled out by the NAP and is a point of contention within libertarian philosophy)

 

Lets generalize this situation first, and then apply the parental situation.  Instead of Father, Mother, Child, and surgeon lets think of Frank, Martha, Charlie, and Sam.  And instead of handicap lets just go to the worse case death.

 

So the situation is that Sam wants to stab Martha in order prevent the probable death of Charlie. Sam intends to be a careful as possible, but there is nonetheless a real possibility of ill effects to Martha.  Frank not only very fond of Charlie, but stands to gain financially or emotionally, or both should Sam stab Martha. 

 

A - Martha refuses Sam, and Charlie dies.

   - Franks suffers a loss but  this is not an aggression, unless you can prove Martha intended Charlie to die, or acted without the slightest concern for Charlie

  - Childbirth is an autonomic body process. There is no more aggression in it than in defecating. That third parties may be alarmed is irrelevant, unless again there is intention or gross negligence.

  - Charlie dies. People die everyday, and not usually the result of aggression. It may be a consequence of the refusal, but unless the intention of the refusal is harm to Charlie, it can't count as aggression.

 

 

B. -  Martha refuses,  and Sam stabs here anyways. Frank helps Sam in some material way.

    -  Sam aggresses again Martha, by intentionally stabbing her against her known wishes.

    -  Frank is an accessory to the assualt, or at the very least a conspirator in the aggression.

   -  Charlie in neither agreeing to  Sam and Franks' scheme, nor in having fault for his predicament commits no aggression.

 

Thus the aggression score in A vs B is not 2 vs 3. but 0 vs 2.  Unless...

 

You can somehow prove the parental relationship transforms what is normally just simple negligence (a mistake of perception regarding risks of a medical intervention) into gross negligence or that it is entirely unreasonable to ignore the advice of any medical doctor during childbirth.  

[Torero]

What handicaps might a child suffer from, that doctors could tell definitively would happen with a vaginal birth and be prevented with a C section? I'm not saying they don't exist, it just seems like a stretch for the basis of an entire argument.

 

If anything else less than certain is assured, wouldn't forcing a C section be the same as a pre-crime?

 

There are risks associated with either natural births or C sections, the evidence seems to point to a much greater risk with a C section, shouldn't the mother be allowed to make that choice?

 

This argument might be valid if the doctors were God, definitively knowing the outcome, but unfortunately they are wrong quite a bit, we shouldn't treat them as god.

 

You're right, it's impossible to know if a baby would come out ok with a vaginal birth as opposed to the thought experiment of the C-section in the example. We do not have a parallel universe to check the results of the other choice. Forgot to mention it when I posted.

 

Also indeed the case imagined relies on the professionality of the doctors. In real life there are many incentives to go for C-sections, as linked by Susana and mellomama (25,000 dollars; craziness!). That may well be the most important reason why these gynaecologists proposed this very thing.

 

Exactly.

 

And to respond to Torero, no one is initiating the use of force to keep the child in the womb (where it has always been) until term. This is a non-action and maintains status quo=no violation of NAP. No one is forcing the man to have a handicapped child. He assumed all risks by the positive action of conceiving the child. The only violation of the NAP would be cutting the woman's body open against her will.

 

The fetus has to come out somehow. If it's not by C-section, it's by vaginal birth; hours of hard work, unimaginable to me, mere man.

 

But that no one is forcing the man to have a handicapped child, I don't agree with. The case presented does it. That the risk is always there is true, but in case the risk would be avoidable and it is willingly made handicapped by irrationality, I consider that force.

 

The intention is not to make the child handicapped, but that is the same with heavy smoking and drinking during pregnancy. Also that I see as an act of aggression to a living thing (first fetus, then baby). It may not be intended to make the baby suffer, but that doesn't make it less aggressive.

 

That cutting the woman open against her will is a violation of NAP is undisputable, of course.

 

First within the NAP and aggression must be intentional (Simple negligence is not an aggression (though gross negligence arguably is))  If I don't scoop my side walk and someone slips and breaks a bone walking up to my door, that's not aggression, even though there may be good reason to believe I am obliged to make that person whole. (Weather this obligation may be forced or not is not spelled out by the NAP and is a point of contention within libertarian philosophy)

 

Is the choice made that leads to aggression not intentional? If the choice would have been made otherwise (the woman chooses the C-section) the harm wouldn't have been done. In the case presented; in real life we don't have parallel unverses to say this with certainty in hindsight. And risks to C-sected women are widely reported, also those medical professionals I take seriously. It's the philosophy I am interested in unveiling, not the real life examples. I've read the links provided by Susana and RoseCodex and the link on Florida by Susana shows that even the medical institutions regret to have C-sected so much...

 

 

Lets generalize this situation first, and then apply the parental situation.  Instead of Father, Mother, Child, and surgeon lets think of Frank, Martha, Charlie, and Sam.  And instead of handicap lets just go to the worse case death.

 

So the situation is that Sam wants to stab Martha in order prevent the probable death of Charlie. Sam intends to be a careful as possible, but there is nonetheless a real possibility of ill effects to Martha.  Frank not only very fond of Charlie, but stands to gain financially or emotionally, or both should Sam stab Martha.

 

I see your comparison, but there's a difference. If Sam doesn't stab Martha (so avoiding the initiation of force), there still is a possiblity that there are ill effects to Martha (cf.: vaginal delivery leading to life-threatening complications to the mother).

 

It's not: stabbing = putting risks on Martha while not stabbing = not putting any risks.

 

 

A - Martha refuses Sam, and Charlie dies.

   - Franks suffers a loss but  this is not an aggression, unless you can prove Martha intended Charlie to die, or acted without the slightest concern for Charlie

  - Childbirth is an autonomic body process. There is no more aggression in it than in defecating. That third parties may be alarmed is irrelevant, unless again there is intention or gross negligence.

  - Charlie dies. People die everyday, and not usually the result of aggression. It may be a consequence of the refusal, but unless the intention of the refusal is harm to Charlie, it can't count as aggression.

 

 

B. -  Martha refuses,  and Sam stabs here anyways. Frank helps Sam in some material way.

    -  Sam aggresses again Martha, by intentionally stabbing her against her known wishes.

    -  Frank is an accessory to the assualt, or at the very least a conspirator in the aggression.

   -  Charlie in neither agreeing to  Sam and Franks' scheme, nor in having fault for his predicament commits no aggression.

 

Thus the aggression score in A vs B is not 2 vs 3. but 0 vs 2.  Unless...

 

You can somehow prove the parental relationship transforms what is normally just simple negligence (a mistake of perception regarding risks of a medical intervention) into gross negligence or that it is entirely unreasonable to ignore the advice of any medical doctor during childbirth.

 

The analogy uses "stabbing" (although you mentioned "as careful as possible"). Stabbing is an act of aggression (I don't dispute that a forced C-section is that, see my post and agreement with mellomama above) without positives included in the word. At least not for the victim of the stabbing (a criminal stabbing someone to steal his money is of course profitable for him).

 

"Stabbing as careful as possible" sounds like "raping as careful as possible". An oxymoron.

 

A surgical operation may or may not be positive for the victim of it. So here there's no guaranteed winner and loser. The woman may even live due to the operation while die when the operation wasn't performed.

 

If rationality is the basis of philosophy, then what about irrational situations; the mother reacting irrationally to her belly being cut open. How does that relate to a philosophical response?

 

If someone goes completely crazy and is a danger to his surroundings (someone walking on the highway trying to save his dog that ran away, risking the lives of car and motor drivers for instance), is it appropriate to hold such a person behaving irrationally captive preventing him to do this? Or would that also be a violation of the NAP; the person should not be hindered in walking on the highway, as that would be the "initiation of force"? Or should be talked out of it; the rational non-violent response to a possibly violent irrational action.

 

Because in the case presented; the woman is pictured irrational.

 

Please, I am nowhere saying that women refusing C-sections are irrational and of course I agree that in most cases she knows her own body best and makes the right choice for herself and the baby.

 

But to me it's not a case of black and white here; there are more nuances in this picture. No guaranteed winners and losers.

[Frosty]

This topic along with abortion and other pregnancy related philosophical issues are tricky, I've never managed to resolve these issues with the NAP or UPB as to what sort of actions we should consider moral or immoral. And Stefan has touched on these issues on the youtube show but never went so far as to argue the position, to my knowledge he only argued the better alternatives and saved the discussion on the act of abortion itself for another video which never surfaced, that leads me to believe that he's also conflicted on this issue.

 

If we're to agree that we own the affects of our actions and a man is partly responsible for producing a baby then surely he's a joint owner and should be able to have some say as to the fate of the child regarding various things that will affect the growth and health.

 

It's messy and I've never read anyone's moral account on this topic that makes clear sense and is consistent, if anyone has any suggestions for material on this then I'd be interested to read it.

[eschiedler]

The seminal work by Judith Jarvis Thomson written in 1971 called "A Defense of Abortion" contains the arguments that clearly frame the issue. I will argue that it is required reading in order to debate the abortion issue rigorously. I am typing from a mobile by the work is available in complete form online and has its own Wiki (as it is rather famous).

 

It is a short read and well written without too much "academize".

[algernon]

I read the wiki, and it is an awful argument. 

 

 

To say that a woman who consciously chose to create a child has "no obligation" to offer it sanctuary and nourishment in her womb is ridiculous. In the thought experiment, the "host" to the violinist was kidnapped. Assuming the pregnant mother is not raped, I do not accept that carrying the pregnancy to term is going "beyond her obligations." I don't even know what else to say. It's just idiotic on its face. (And yes, I realize I'm employing adjectives instead of arguments, but I'm at a loss as to how this could be offered as a serious moral argument for abortion.)

 

abortion does not violate the fetus's legitimate rights, but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnantwoman's body and life-support functions—to which it has no right. Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, a woman does not violate any moral obligation; rather, a woman who carries her pregnancy to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations.^[6]

 

 

 

If they are using that argument, could the same argument be made that you have no moral obligation to feed your child?

[Torero]

"But that no one is forcing the man to have a handicapped child, I don't agree with. The case presented does it. That the risk is always there is true, but in case the risk would be avoidable and it is willingly made handicapped by irrationality, I consider that force."

 

Who gets to deem the cause "irrationality"?

 

That's always the question, in any situation, right? Of course in the case of the late stage pregnancy the OP is talking about the mother is the first person to take seriously (i.e. her rationality).

 

But what if she becomes irrational in the later stages of the pregnancy and others with relevant knowledge -the case is on an honest doctor, which you have clearly argumented is rare as there's financial incentives involved- and the other person whose rationality is important for the newborn (the father) are rational?

 

The mother is always right, no matter what?

 

I read the wiki, and it is an awful argument. 

 

 

To say that a woman who consciously chose to create a child has "no obligation" to offer it sanctuary and nourishment in her womb is ridiculous. In the thought experiment, the "host" to the violinist was kidnapped. Assuming the pregnant mother is not raped, I do not accept that carrying the pregnancy to term is going "beyond her obligations." I don't even know what else to say. It's just idiotic on its face. (And yes, I realize I'm employing adjectives instead of arguments, but I'm at a loss as to how this could be offered as a serious moral argument for abortion.)

 

If the answer to the first question is yes, then I don't understand your position here...

 

The big difference between the C-section/no C-section of the OP and abortion is the stage the pregnancy is in.

In the OP case the baby is fetal viable; it is a living being.

In the case of abortion (up to a certain week) that's not the case; the choice is between continuing a life to be developed or halting that process.

 

How can you morally dislike the mother who chooses abortion (so doesn't want the life to develop; she's not killing life) yet seem to stand behind her in case it really is a question between life or death?

[tz1]

I won't get into the Abortion debate, but would say that both parents are the guardian of the child - assuming they are married and the Father is the provider and protector.

That said, I have a BIG problem with doctors.  They tend to be ill informed if not stupid, following medical fads.

It is rarely a case "We can prove the baby's head is bigger than your birth canal", 100% risk of something very bad happening.

Usually it is some heightened risk, but one Cesarian usually requires subsequent children to be delivered that way, so it isn't as if there isn't a lasting mark from doing a Cesarian.

It is up to the parents to make a properly informed choice, and it is up to the doctors to properly inform them of what the risks are and why, not say "I know better than you".

And there often are mitigations or other things they can do to reduce whatever risk of natural child birth.

 

Medicine is far from perfectly scientific - there is a bit, but there are more unknowns than knowns.  Even risk estimates are often way off.  The other problem is the bias that if she has a Cesarian, and they notice it really wasn't necessary, they are unlikely to tell her or to fix the system.  You can't do the experiment (identical twins having babies of equal gestation from the same fathers).

 

I would also bias toward the Mother's opinion rather than the Fathers in that the Mother is more likely to know her own body, has more at stake, and is more likely to act in the interests of the child.  Natural Childbirth is hardly a selfish option.

 

What happened before we had all this technology?  Women gave birth naturally and most of the time it worked out.  A hospital is the last place a newborn should be - lots of diseases, they will try to give him a dozen vaccines, the birth will be as unnatural as possible.

[dsayers]

Sorry I didn't see this reply sooner. Life was busy for a while there...

 

1) Being pregnant is different from having a disease in a couple of ways.

 

--First, she and the father have both consciously made the choice to bring about the condition she is in and are responsible for the products of it, both in terms of the child and in terms of the consequences to the mother's health. Diseases are almost never a direct conscious choice, and are never a shared responsibility with another person. 

 

--Second, the risks to her (and the baby) can be minimized in many ways, including being certain of her health & nutritional status prior to pregnancy, educating themselves on proper prenatal care, and minimizing contact with the western medical model of pregnancy and birth (which is sick care--good for trauma, bad for normal mothers and babies).

I didn't choose to occupy this body. This does nothing to diminish my legitimate, exclusive claim over my body. Similarly, the ability to minimize risk also has no part in determining ownership.

 

Further,  I just want to flesh out that we have two separate questions here. I don't think that the "rights" of the father necessarily translate into the right of the state to intervene if the two of them disagree. I think those two things can be muddied up in these discussions. 

For sure. I for one make it a point to rarely if ever get bogged down in minutia. My input wasn't meant to address the topic, but rather the underlying consideration that makes the topic possible. If we assume that the State is righteous (for the sake of argument), then that which the State can/should move on would be concentric with that which is philosophically sound. Would you agree?