Doesn't matter...if someone of either sex isn't hired because of their sex, it's sexism. No such thing as "mild" sexism. Why would you assume that? Which is sexism. Women are part of "culture"....and why bring in Islam...plenty of sexism in ALL cultures.
I would think there are some rights prior to birth. It doesn't seem right for doctors to experiment on fetuses in such a way as to permanently damage them. Let's say that happened and some doctors intentionally conducted experiments in order to make some scientific breakthrough, and a child was born blind as a result. Granted, the doctors could probably be charged through some law we already have on the books reference experimentation like that . But to say an unborn child has no rights is saying that the blind person above has no claim to support a civil siut against the offending scientists who left her blind. That seems preposterous to me. The injury is present and the offender is known. How could she not have a case? But if you agree that this hypothetical blind person does have a case, then you are acknowledging that she had rights prior to birth as that is when the offending act occurred.
some But the court would be awarding her damages for an act that occurred at a time in which she had no rights...
Hey we can go further with this. Let's say that in the future some authoritarian, totalitarian government finds a way to tweak their fetuses in a way that makes them better soldiers when they grow up. What would be the reason for this act evoking horror in many? Would it really be some medical/ethic concepts being violated that would have the world in uproar? Search your heart. Would the real reason for horror be the violation of so many people's rights before they were even born?
That's not how rights work; there are time and place restrictions. I don't have freedom of speech in a courtroom. If I sued for violation, it would be thrown out; I didn't have that right at that time. Your opinion on fetus rights basically opens the door to do anything to a fetus prior to birth, because like the speech in the courtroom above, you are placing a time/place restriction on the person's right to life. Right to life trumps all. If you don't have that then you can't sue for ANY damages committed against you during that time period .
What "rights" do you think fetuses have....that don't interfere with the rights of the women they are in ?
It is not about choice - these are two separate issues. The moral issue is different than the legal issue. In the case of the moral issue - this directs one's personal actions - how one conducts oneself. The Legal issue is about how others conduct themselves - take Pot for example - there is a difference between not smoking Pot yourself - and stopping another person from smoking pot via physical violence.
Not sure. But my hypotheticals are entirely possible in the near future, if not already, and they indicate that the unborn have at least some rights. There are many situations in which one person's rights trump another. Some of them are complicated and quite difficult to untangle. I posit that the mother/fetus relationship is one of these and there probably can be no hard rule to distinguish between the rights of each. It must be case by case.
Fetuses have protections but no rights...they can't have any. But born people have rights and , I would hope, sue for damages they received in the womb.
Except one can't sue for something that they had no right to. Isn't it possible to tweak someone's genes to make them more docile or compliant? What if Putin or an even worse totalitarian sets up a system in which all babies born in their country are made to be more compliant with the authoritarian state. And then it was exposed to the world. We would fight to stop this from happening. Do you really think the fire that burns for war would be over some general genetic/medical principles, or would it be the violation of millions' fundamental rights, WHILE THEY WERE A FETUS?
Who said they had no right to sight after birth? Make believe doesn't cut it.... What "rights" do you think fetuses should have....that don't interfere with the rights of the women they are in ?
I would argue that after sentience - once significant brain function has been established - roughly 24 weeks - a living human can be said to exist - Does this confer rights - including the right to life ? I would say yes from a moral perspective - No from a legal perspective (but this gets grey as there are some interesting legal arguments - None however IMO - hit the bar) but for arguments sake - let us grant that the entity has "rights" in some fashion - some legal standing - say akin to that of cruelty to animals at least. Now we have a legal problem of conflicting rights. While we may agree that the entity has a right to exist - does this also grant it the right to occupancy in the womb of another human - against that human's wishes ? We then have to weigh the value of each side on the scales of Justice - On one side you have the rights of the woman - the value of which is very weighty - right to reproductive freedom - bodily integrity - and so on. Heavy stuff on one side. On the other side you have - what - how do we value the rights of the fetus ? There are interesting arguments that an be made here - but I will leave it at this. Prior to sentience - there are no good arguments for valuing the rights of the fetus over that of the woman. Just to clarify - there is no "unborn child" that can be said to exist prior to sentience - so we are talking after that point. I don't get the example of some scientist doing something that would intentionally leave a developing fetus blind... this doesn't happen - and we have moved away from the rights of the mother to another individual - whose rights with respect to the fetus are completely different. I would say the individual who had some made scientist alter them while in the womb - 'intentionally" definitely has a case.
In your view it appears the fetus has no right to sight. Someone can remove it without violating anyone's rights. If you claim that the blind person can claim a right after birth indicates that she had rights that were violated while unborn. It is hypothetical, but it illustrates at least some rights. An unborn person has a right to not have their DNA tweaked, even if the government orders it and/or the mother agrees. That is one definite right the fetus has over the mother's autonomy.
. If the woman isn't willing , it violates HER rights. It doesn't have to violate a right to an entity that doesn't have rights, but it does violate them in a criminal way. No, it means she was injured before birth. No, not really, they have no rights. Nope, a fetus has no rights. It can be against the law without it violating imaginary rights. The fetus may have some PROTECTIONS such as those that make late term abortions illegal except in the case of danger to the life/health of woman and/or fetus....but no rights. Protections and rights are two very different things.
How can one be held responsible for injuring a fetus when one can't be held responsible for killing one? What principles are at work here?
