Hi all,
As I mentioned in our first session, I created a thread entitled "Week 2 Discussion Questions" under the section on the blackboard. However, I heard that some of you weren't able to access it on the blackboard.
So I am creating this new post. You can submit your question for Week 2 by using the "comment" function of this post.
I will generate a new post every weekend for you to post your questions which are due on Mondays.
After seeing the eight photographs of a human embryo as it developed in utero from the 7-week-old stage to the 35-week-old stage, when is the embryo considered a human being and thus have a "right to life"?
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I thought was particularly interesting came from the "Should a Fetus Have Rights?" article. The concept of gene therapy, and how doctors now have the ability to fix defects for children while they are still in the womb is very intriguing.
ReplyDeleteDo any of you guys think this will lead to a decrease in abortions? As sad as it is, many families do decide to have an abortion when they are told their baby will have a defect of some sort. But, I guess it all comes back to the debate of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life.
One thing which caught my attention in the reading was the information of medieval legislation concerning adultery. First, I found it interesting that there were laws which designated adultery as a crime and listing specific punishments. In today's society, adultery is still frowned upon but it is not punishable in a court of law.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I was stuck by the differences in the punishments for both men and women. Men were immediately put to death regardless of who he transgressed with while women were only put to death if they transgressed with a servant in the home. Why the differences? Were women thought to be weaker than men in terms of resisting such temptations? Is this not opposite of the way we tend to stereotype men today?
The abortion issue, as shown by the "Should a Fetus Have Rights?" article, is clearly one that has many different sides to its complexity. One of the questions I can't seem to get out of my mind is: If someone knowingly attacks a pregnant woman and receives an appropriate punishment for endangering the lives of two, the mother and the fetus, is it still morally or legally right for any couple or pregnant woman to abort their unborn baby, even if they had legitimate reasons such as financial or personal issues? Both sides share the element of knowing that their decision physically affects a second life but their reasons for making that decision are vastly different. I think the point I'm really trying to get at is: do you think the reason for taking away an unborn child's life should affect the outcome or the punishment that person receives?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bonnie Steinbock, life begins when the fetus is approximately 24 weeks old. This is about the same time it becomes viable. Yet, going along with the scientific definition of when it begins, life starts when two gametes are unified. To me, that means the moment an embryo forms, it is a human being. As Hadley Arkes says, there are many people who may be physically disabled but aren't considered anything short of human. The fetus is the exact same. Sure, it may not have viability until much later, but people gradually lose their viability as they grow older. Does this mean that as time goes on, people can no longer be considered human?
ReplyDeleteI am interested to know what the public's reaction would be if a man/woman killed a women without knowing that she was in fact pregnant. I'm not familiar with any laws or ways to prosecute, but would the prosecution be able to try the person for both murders when the killer honestly (in all sense of the word given the scenario and murder trial) didn't know about the life inside the mother?
ReplyDeleteI found the conflicting views of the women in the Newsweek article particularly interesting. Especially the anti-abortion Catholic woman who became pro-stem-cell research after her daughter was diagnosed with Rett syndrome. When the fetus is tested through amniocentesis and is found to have a debilitating or even life-threatening disease, is it not the moral obligation of the parents to terminate the pregnancy to save their child from a life unable to be lived to its fullest?
ReplyDeleteI have posted this to blackboard, but it seems that this blog will be the master from now on. So here are my questions regarding week 2's readings.
ReplyDeleteAs indicated in the reading, it has been controversial about whether to protect the mother's rights or the fetus' rights. Say in emergency cases, the physicians can only save either the mother or the unborn child. Which one should the they pick? If we consider a fetus as a human being, then it would be against one party's human rights to save the other one. Also, women are assigned to give birth by the nature. If the mother is risking her health and even life to give birth and the law decides not to grant her right to protect herself under situations like these, will this lead to potential gender conflict or more specifically, gender inequality?
for the Alfonso X songs about Holy Mary, I noticed a pattern that each song was about Holy Mary saving a faithful woman. I was just curious as to why this is? How come the men in the songs are characterized as unfaithful or not as religious as the women?
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the fetus article, I believe that one of the central conflicts were distinguishing the difference between abortion and intentional fetal homicide. Many pro-life supporters try to compare the two and say that abortion is just as bad as someone else killing your child (as in the Lacy Peterson case, for example). I am not saying that abortion is right or wrong but I do support the notion that there is a difference between a mother choosing to terminate a pregnancy and a mother unwilling loosing her baby because of another factor and each situation should be handled differently.
ReplyDeleteAfter rereading the Newsweek fetus rights article I started to really think. Although the fetus may be considered a person, and therefore have his/her own rights, he/she still depends on the mother for survival until birth. So, is it even possible for laws to protect everyone’s rights fairly?
ReplyDeleteFor the Songs of Holy Mary, I find it fascinating that faith of the women to the Virgin Mary has literally has saved them, or her child in case of the third song. The Holy Mary helped all the women, innocent or sinful. I am bit confused what really happens in the second cantigas when the woman faces the Emperor and the devil simply doesn't acknowledge her.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Newsweek, I am not a fan of abortion. I never like the idea of it, but I accept it when people choose to do abortion if they have a legitimate reason. I also find it more acceptable if abortion is done within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy when fetus is not yet considered alive. In terms of crimes, what would happen if someone attack a pregnant mother and caused the fetus's death, but the attacker does not know that she's pregnant?
Well, i think the attacker would be charged for the crime done to the women but i guess that for him to be charged for murder, a long investigation would have to take place and also consider how old was the fetus and if you could tell at plain sight if the woman was pregnant or not.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the Marciniak case, do you think it is ironical of Marciniak to be furious on her husband not getting penalized for killing her fetus and herself supporting abortion rights? After all, she supports killing of fetus in a way and on the other hand, she makes statements like "He (her husband) got away with murder".
ReplyDeleteThe above question was posted by me (Shivangi Jain). Sorry, something went wrong with my profile
ReplyDeleteFor week 2 reading, ""Should a Fetus Have Rights?", I could also raise up the question of "When is a Fetus Considered Living?". When the brain activity of infants starts, or when they begin to form like human beings?
ReplyDeleteDue to current medical technologies, it became possible to end pregnancy without harming fetus by developing fetal transplantation or artificial wombs. However, although this technology would not directly harm fetus, would it be "okay" for us to proceed this method? or is it just a way for us to feel "less guilty" about eliminating the potential human beings?
According to the reading about Fetus' rights, I found a dilemma of technologies. On the one hand, technologies enhance the possibility of survival of fetus, and cure fetus having illness. On the other hand, technologies require experiment and a large number of embryos. During the experiment, embryos will take the risk of dying if experiment fails.
ReplyDeleteThis article highlights one of the most debated questions in our society today. When, if ever, is it appropriate to abort a fetus? The author suggests that at 24 weeks, a fetus has formed an embryo and has now become a living human being. However, can this “human being” feel or think for itself? And if not, does it deserve rights?
ReplyDelete