ruby sparks
Contributor
When should a developing fetus be granted (at least some of) the rights that we usually award to 'persons'?
The primary right (perhaps better to call it a protection) I have in mind is the right not to be harmed, or killed. Or to put it another way, the right to life.
I tend to agree with the laws which say that this should happen at a certain stage of development of the fetus, and specifically those laws which pick a point around 24 weeks. I am not sure if such a point is picked because of viability or because of cognitive development per se, but for me it should hinge on the latter.
There is no doubt this is a complicated and controversial issue. My basic reasoning (which for emphasis I am going to underline) is that, imo, there is no good case for awarding this basic right to a fertilised egg, and no good case, under normal circumstances, for not awarding it to a newborn baby, and thus it should be awarded somewhere in between.
Whether there are some cases where it is reasonable to award it earlier, or not award it later (in other words for example allow a late term abortion) I am not sure, but my gut feeling is that as with most things, we should allow for exceptions based on exceptional circumstances, for example on the basis of minimising suffering (which may, imo, extend beyond considerations of the suffering of the fetus).
The above question is tricky enough on its own. It gets even trickier if we ask whether it is reasonable to also draw an earlier line at which what might be called 'at least some justification' is needed before allowing abortion on demand. I read that a number of countries, including for example Denmark and Norway, have such a limit at 12 weeks, Germany 14 weeks, Sweden at 18 weeks and so on. I do not know what the particular justifications need to be in those countries after those times.
In the UK, as I understand it (I stand to be corrected), there is in effect, abortion on demand up to the 24-week limit. However, it seems to me that it is not 'really' abortion on demand, because it has to be deemed that the woman needs (and must give) the 'adverse mental health of the mother' justification, which I think has to be certified by two doctors. In practice, this is merely a formality, but in principle it is not, to me, abortion on demand. As I understand it, this is similar to the justification that is required in for example Denmark at 12 weeks, so I am thinking that abortion in Denmark really is available on demand (no reason need be given) up until 12 weeks, which to me would be a better law. As to whether a law would be even better again if it allowed abortion on demand (ie without the need to give any particular justification at all) up until 24 weeks, I'm not sure, but I'm open to thinking about it.
I strongly suspect that fetal rights would not be such an issue were it not for that fact that the rights of another (primarily the pregnant woman) have to be taken into consideration at the same time, and thus, it seems that the core issue mostly boils down to the delicate problem of simultaneously weighing one set of rights against another. In my preferred scenario, at some point, the two entities, pregnant woman and fetus, start to be treated as two, conjoined, persons (at least as regard the right to life or right not to be harmed) rather than one person (carrying a non-person).
Canada is, I read, unusual among 'western', developed countries in not having any fetal rights on paper whatsoever. How this affects abortions in practice, I do not know. Can a typical Canadian woman, for example, request and obtain an abortion at any stage in a pregnancy with no questions asked as regards her reasons?
The primary right (perhaps better to call it a protection) I have in mind is the right not to be harmed, or killed. Or to put it another way, the right to life.
I tend to agree with the laws which say that this should happen at a certain stage of development of the fetus, and specifically those laws which pick a point around 24 weeks. I am not sure if such a point is picked because of viability or because of cognitive development per se, but for me it should hinge on the latter.
There is no doubt this is a complicated and controversial issue. My basic reasoning (which for emphasis I am going to underline) is that, imo, there is no good case for awarding this basic right to a fertilised egg, and no good case, under normal circumstances, for not awarding it to a newborn baby, and thus it should be awarded somewhere in between.
Whether there are some cases where it is reasonable to award it earlier, or not award it later (in other words for example allow a late term abortion) I am not sure, but my gut feeling is that as with most things, we should allow for exceptions based on exceptional circumstances, for example on the basis of minimising suffering (which may, imo, extend beyond considerations of the suffering of the fetus).
The above question is tricky enough on its own. It gets even trickier if we ask whether it is reasonable to also draw an earlier line at which what might be called 'at least some justification' is needed before allowing abortion on demand. I read that a number of countries, including for example Denmark and Norway, have such a limit at 12 weeks, Germany 14 weeks, Sweden at 18 weeks and so on. I do not know what the particular justifications need to be in those countries after those times.
In the UK, as I understand it (I stand to be corrected), there is in effect, abortion on demand up to the 24-week limit. However, it seems to me that it is not 'really' abortion on demand, because it has to be deemed that the woman needs (and must give) the 'adverse mental health of the mother' justification, which I think has to be certified by two doctors. In practice, this is merely a formality, but in principle it is not, to me, abortion on demand. As I understand it, this is similar to the justification that is required in for example Denmark at 12 weeks, so I am thinking that abortion in Denmark really is available on demand (no reason need be given) up until 12 weeks, which to me would be a better law. As to whether a law would be even better again if it allowed abortion on demand (ie without the need to give any particular justification at all) up until 24 weeks, I'm not sure, but I'm open to thinking about it.
I strongly suspect that fetal rights would not be such an issue were it not for that fact that the rights of another (primarily the pregnant woman) have to be taken into consideration at the same time, and thus, it seems that the core issue mostly boils down to the delicate problem of simultaneously weighing one set of rights against another. In my preferred scenario, at some point, the two entities, pregnant woman and fetus, start to be treated as two, conjoined, persons (at least as regard the right to life or right not to be harmed) rather than one person (carrying a non-person).
Canada is, I read, unusual among 'western', developed countries in not having any fetal rights on paper whatsoever. How this affects abortions in practice, I do not know. Can a typical Canadian woman, for example, request and obtain an abortion at any stage in a pregnancy with no questions asked as regards her reasons?
Last edited:
