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.
In the case of the Coenraadses (Newsweek article), abortion was simply not an option, yet they supported the development of embryonic stem-cell research, and thus the destruction of embryos, to continue developing a cure for Rett Syndrome. To what extent does selfishness play a part in whether an individual leans pro-choice or pro-life? What does this inconsistency mean for future legislation when pregnant women, who are attacked and lose their child, support abortion but want justice as if their fetuses were human beings?
ReplyDeleteRegarding your last question, I feel like the inconsistency regarding abortions and fetal rights revolves around the fact that these women consider the fetus a human being when it will become one. Basically, the fetus is not a human being if the mother does not plan to keep it, as it will not turn into a human being. However, if the mother wants the child, and a violent act kills the fetus, then they want justice as if their fetus was a human being because it would have become a human being.
ReplyDeleteI feel the true question here should be whether a fetus that the mother is planning to abort is just a fetus or whether it is a human being?
In the Newsweek article, there is a quote by Ken Connor, president of the anti abortion Family Research Council stating, "It's not OK for the husband to kill his wife's child, but it's okay for the mother to have an abortion?". Yet this woman was 5 days short of delivery when her husband punched her stomach, ultimately killing the child, while many woman who have abortions do it within the first few weeks of becoming pregnant. There must be very important difference in the growth of an embryo/fetus between the first few weeks all the way to nine months later. So my question is: Is there a time during pregnancy when it embryo truly becomes a "human" and cannot be aborted? "If so, how can one determine this time, or justify it?" "Can one merely justify it by claiming they can see human characteristics (such as fingers, toes, a heartbeat)?" I feel there is a big difference in the living or "human" state of an embryo between the first few weeks of pregnancy vs. five days before a baby is due for birth. Therefore its possible that laws could/should be made differently for different stages of pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteMy question goes back to the "Songs of Holy Mary of Alfonso X, The Wise," specifically the first text about adultery. José Piedra describes the actions of the young woman and the Moor in terms of their innocence "of a sin she did not premeditate or promote," and "because of the untamed savagery of his libido," respectively. How do these justifications for each character's lack of control highlight the assumptions embedded in the text about gender differences?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Newsweek article, it is currently legal for the mother to choose whether or not to abort her child, however, if the fetus dies because of an attack, it should be treated as a crime and the attacker should be punished not only for assault to the mother but also for a murder. On what basis is it okay for the mother to abort, or essentially kill her own child or fetus but it is a crime when the father or another person kills him or her? When is the fetus in question considered a person possessing all human rights including the right to life? People who are pro-choice give the mother the right to make the decision of whether to abort but since it is also the father’s child, how come it is usually only one parent’s decision that matters while the father’s opinion is most often ignored?
ReplyDeleteIn Cantiga 185, medieval legislation stated that a man who commits adultery should be killed while a woman committing adultery (not with their servant) receives a public lashing and spends the rest of her time in a convent. How come the punishments are so different, worse for the male than for the female even though it would have been considered a bigger deal if a woman committed adultery?
The end of the Newsweek article states that "the question is whether the law can protect fetuses without eroding the rights their mothers fought so hard to win." My question is, is there a balance that can be struck between the rights of an unborn fetus and the rights of the mother? At what, if any, point do the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother? As Rebecca pointed out, "living" characteristics are very subjective. Is it the place of the government to define life?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Cantiga 185 (186), "if a man is accused of adultery and if proven, he receives the death penalty. If a woman commits adultery, and if proven, she should be punished with a public lashing and enclosed in a convent; she would also lose her dowry and any money received through the marriage, which would go to the husband. But if the husband chooses to forgive his wife, he has two years to make this decision, at which time he would release her from the convent and bring her home." This is striking because it suggests that male punishment for adultery was more severe than female punishment since male adultery meant immediate death whereas female adultery would be dealt with through public humiliation, etc. I wonder what the relationship between men and women was like back then.
ReplyDeleteAt the conclusion of "Portrait of a Monster" the author explains and warns men of the dangers of women. However, the series of ballads is based on the event of a male giving birth to a child (monster). Also, throughout the ballads, Manchego talks about adultery, witchcraft, and the devil. Therefore, for me, the ending does not connect with the connotations used and comments made by him. Could it be that his ballads have a larger meaning than its conclusion? Is it possible that he was commenting negatively on transgendered people? And does this reflect the believes of most of the inhabitants of Granada?
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading the Newsweek article, I noticed that most of the talk concerning abortion was related to the rights of a fetus. Many of the pro-life supporters seemed to focus only on the fetus and how it is the same as a child. Yet, when a woman becomes pregnant, it is her body that is transforming and creating new life. So I'm wondering when does what happens to a woman's body not become her concern anymore? Can a law really be fairly created that would give the court and government control over a woman's body and her right to choose?
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the news week article: I wonder how involved and active are anti-abortion groups in early child hood education, nutrition programs and youth programs in general? It seems (with little personal research on my behalf) they may be more involved with saving unborn lives human beings than the youths they may become. I dint think a woman's right to choose should not be taken away nor should choosing to terminate pregnancy be seen as murder. Many aren't fit to be parents and if one should choose that the lack the capacity for whatever reason they should not have to go through with the pregnancy. The societal cost of unwanted, undernourished and abused children may grossly outweigh termination before birth. #postedwithoutreading
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading the Newsweek article, the section about embryonic stem-cell research really captured my attention. So I was just wondering, would you guys prefer for the frozen embryos to be adopted? Or would it be better to donate the embryos to medical research? Also, if they were to be donated, how would this be different from abortion?
ReplyDeleteI had never heard of surgeries being performed on fetus', so when I read the part of the surgery for spina bifida I was very astonished. At first, it seems like this is an amazing breakthrough in medicine, but it also comes with risks. A mother who has the surgery is risking her own life in order to avoid surgery and potentially save their unborn child. This is an amazing option since it avoids abortion, but one must consider the possibilities of danger for both the mother and child. Do you think these surgeries should be more available to women who carry unhealthy fetus' or is it a drastic procedure? Would you even consider this procedure?
ReplyDeleteAdding more on the debate to fetus' rights, don't we live in a nation that entitles everyone to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The first one, life -- shouldn't that be applicable to a fetus, or even an embryo? If you think about it, every single embryo, from the moment it becomes fertilized, has a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even if he/she is sitting in a petri dish in a refrigerator somewhere, if given the opportunity, that embryo could become a fully-formed human being. Following this line of logic, to abort would be to deprive the embryo of its chance at life, therefore making it unconstitutional, not to mention unethical. Naturally, one could argue that biologically an embryo is incapable of thought, is not really human, religiously doesn't have a soul etc etc, but when you look at it from the long-term perspective that an embryo is merely a premature human being (but nonetheless a human being), shouldn't an embryo be given protection from murder?
ReplyDeleteIn the article "The War over Fetal Rights", the author included two interviews with the pro-life and pro-choice views. By repeating the same questions, readers could get a clear view on the opinions of both sides. Interestingly, the pro-choice view could not give a clear answer but the pro-life had a clear answer for each question. One that particularly caught my attention is the cloning question. If cloning will be used for research and reproduction, if there is some magical discovery or success, who gets the recognition? Do the cell donors receive acknowledgement for the mere possibility of success? What privacy rights are currently in place to protect them?
ReplyDeleteRegarding question asked above, i think that if anything was discovered those who would get credit would be the researchers. Once those parents give their consent to use those embryos for research, thats pretty much it. i think with that signing they give up all legal rights.
ReplyDeleteI have always been a firm believer in the pro-choice point of view. However, ethics, in the case of abortion and 'fetal rights' are almost never black and white. Where do we draw the line for what is murder and what is not murder? To me, this issue has to do with malicious intent. I would say, for the most part, women who get abortions do it with the fetus in mind. They do not bring a child into the world because they know they cannot provide for it the way it deserves, which, to me, is commendable. However, when someone deliberately harms another in order to harm, in the case of Glenddale Black, then yes that person's unborn child should be protected.
ReplyDelete