Background:
A pregnant young woman, “G”, has a history of glue-sniffing addiction. She currently has three other children, all taken away by the Winnipeg Child and Family Service for their own well-being. Due to their mother’s addiction, two of these children are physically and mentally disabled. Considering “G’s” addiction and parenting history, The Child and Family Services Agency was able to have her put in a treatment facility, against her will, in an attempt to prevent “G’s” unborn child from harm. According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, though, individuals are guaranteed a right to security. With this in mind, the Manitoba Court of Appeal overturned the decision to admit “G” and despite Supreme Court appeal, “G” remained out of treatment. Eventually, “G” stopped sniffing glue, gave birth to a healthy baby, and is now expecting another child. The dilemma here is based on if the state or court should have control over a woman’s body if she could possibly endanger an unborn child, but also what rights an unborn child technically has in this situation.
Discussion:
When beginning a discussion on this case, two things must be taken into consideration: the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child, if they even exist. As a woman, “G” by law has the right to control her own body and put into her body what she pleases. Where the line begins to blur is when “G” moves from a woman to a pregnant woman. According to the law by the Canadian Chart of Rights and Freedoms, “every individual [is guaranteed] a right to security of the person” despite whether that person is with child or not. Essentially, by law, a pregnant woman is able to ingest and do as she pleases and the state cannot force her to do anything that she does not necessarily want to.
Where this case begins to get complicated, though, is when we take into account the rights, if any, of the unborn child. Personhood is a human being’s status of having individual rights and has been a highly debated topic in many abortion discussions. At what point do we consider when a fetus has the same rights to life and protection as a born human being? Almost all laws and principles alike state that a person has the right to be protected from harm, but do not clarify what is considered a “person”. Based on current abortion law (in the United States), some fetuses can be considered human beings that have these rights as early as 24 weeks into a pregnancy. In this case then, technically one could say that the state does have the right to place “G” in a treatment facility in order to protect the well-being of this unborn child who also has rights to that protection from harm.
This argument, though, leads to a slippery slope of debating whose rights take a higher priority: the rights of the mother who is born and capable of speaking her own opinion or the unborn child who is essentially helpless as he/she has no way of voicing an opinion or even asking for help. Furthermore, is a state able to determine if a mother is fit enough to make the decision of whether she can properly protect the well-being of the fetus outside of a treatment facility? The court here is placed in a moral versus lawful dilemma of wanting to protect the unborn child from mother-inflicted maltreatment and honoring the written law to protect a woman’s right to her body. In this case, while I do agree that it seems unlawful to force “G” into a treatment facility, I strongly believe in the idea that an unborn child, who is entirely helpless, deserves a chance at life that is unaltered by his/her mother’s actions that he/she cannot control. The court and the state should remain out of the decision of women’s reproductive rights, until the well-being and potential harm of the fetus comes into play.
Topic Relevance:
Personhood was a very debated topic during the Presidential Debate series and throughout the entire 2016 election. It remains, and will likely remain, one of the most disagreed upon subjects in modern politics.
Works cited:
Beauchamp, Tom L, and James F. Childress. “A Theory Based on Human Properties.” Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Oxford UP, 2001, p. 66-68.
Beckwith, Francis J. “Abortion, Bioethics, and Personhood: A Philosophical Reflection.” The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Trinity International University, 2001.
“Bioethical Issues- Abortion.” Adelaide Centre for Bioethics and Culture, 2014. http://www.bioethics.org.au/Resources/Resource%20Topics/Abortion.html
Thomas, John E, et al. “Case 5.4: Protecting an Unborn Child.” Well and Good: Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics, Broadview P, 1987.
After reading that “the court and the state should remain out of the decision of women’s reproductive rights,” the vice presidential debate of October 2012 came to mind. While both Biden and Ryan mentioned contentious, discussion-provoking points, none surpassed Biden’s opening remarks. He described himself as “personally pro-life,” argued that every woman’s circumstances are different, and went on to say that he therefore has no right to impose his personal beliefs on those who choose to have an abortion. I argue that the government should not remain out of the decision of abortion, as standing by any justice, no matter how small, equates to agreeing with and validating that behavior. Passive acceptance is, in essence, support. There is no validity in calling oneself a supporter of human life if he does nothing to protect it. Hence, the term “personally pro-life” is an oxymoron.
Election 2012: Biden vs. Ryan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3roG09O6T4
Joe Biden on Abortion:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Joe_Biden_Abortion.htm
I really like all of the points you made in this post and the conclusion you arrived at. Specifically, though, I want to focus in on the debate as to whose rights should be more highly regarded in the case of an abortion – the mother’s or the child’s. Obviously, the mother, as a living human being, has complete moral status. The child, however, is a different story. We need to consider how much moral status the child has.
According to our conventional definitions of moral status, competent persons have complete moral status. According to the Random House Dictionary, a “person” is defined as “a human being, whether an adult or child; a human being as distinguished from an animal or thing; an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture; and a self-conscious or rational being.” Obviously, the child meets the first two criteria. However, the child does not meet the last two criteria in utero. Before birth, fetuses do not have social relationships or behavioral patterns, and thus fail to meet the sociological definition of a person. In addition, fetuses are not self-conscious or rational and thus do not meet the philosophical definition of a person.
The mother meets all of these criteria and thus can be considered a person with full moral status. The fetus does not meet all of the criteria and thus, while still due moral respect, seems justified to have less moral standing than the mother. Thus, it is my opinion that, so long as she is competent to make autonomous decisions, the mother’s rights should take preference over the fetus’. Unless the mother wants to make a choice to cause undue, unjustified harm to the child, then she should have the right to make decisions without governmental or social interference.
Source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/person