In a bioethics class I'm taking, we were talking about the death penalty, and the discussion progressed to include abortion. Someone raised the question: "If a woman on death row happened to get pregnant, should we still execute her?"
I'm pro-choice, and support embryonic stem cell research. But, my gut instinct to the question was "No, of course you can't kill her baby!" Then I realized the inherent inconsistency there- in the other cases, I don't think of the embryo as a baby. I'm not sure how to rectify this.
So, what do you think? What if the woman was 8 weeks pregnant? 8 months?
Note: I'm against the death penalty in all cases, but that's another discussion entirely.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Death Penalty and Abortion.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12561
I know exactly what you mean...I have had this same conversation with myself in terms of murder. If a woman is murdered and she was pregnant, as soon as I hear it I want to yell "They murdered two people though, her and her baby!" But then I catch myself.
I feel it is kind of pointless to argue for abortion in terms of "well, it is not a baby yet it is only a fetus." because then when it is another situation, it is easy to turn around and vote the other way. I think the best thing to do is to admit that when someone has an abortion, she is knowingly terminating a life, per say but that is HER choice to make. It has been brought up before that pro-birthers (my lil nickname for em because they usually are anything BUT pro-life) always put the life of the unborn fetus over the life of an already existing human being just because a fetus seems so innocent and helpless. But then you throw em a curveball and ask "Well what if that fetus will someday grow up to be a child molester or a murderer?" Then you get the "uh well uh...all life is sacr...uh"
:P
But then you throw em a curveball and ask "Well what if that fetus will someday grow up to be a child molester or a murderer?" Then you get the "uh well uh...all life is sacr...uh" :P
************************************
You're starting from the presumption that someone lacks innocence because of crimes they might potentially commit decades later, and you're smug because people don't have an answer ready?
that's a toughie. But the difference between a woman deciding to terminate her pregnancy and the government executing a pregnant woman is whose choice it is. Maybe the pregnant woman on death row has a partner or family member who would take responsibility of the child.
I definitely agree that if a pregnant woman is killed, it is only one count of murder under the law, because a fetus does not have the same rights as a human being. That said, we do place some value on a fetus, and if that woman (on death row) wanted that baby to live, I don't think we have the right to kill her while she is still pregnant. Same as if we forced a woman to have an abortion, it is still wrong even though it is right if she wants the abortion. People wait for years on death row, I think it would be simple enough that if she wanted the baby to live, to just stay her execution for a couple months after she gives birth.
I didn't really mean to call it a baby in the last sentence. I meant if she wanted the fetus to be born so it could turn into a baby, of course.
Hehehehe Just kind of slipped out, eh?
I'd treat it just like a traditional abortion. If it's early enough in the pregnancy, the woman should choose whether she wants to continue the pregnancy. If not, execution should go on as planned. If she does want to continue it, the execution should be delayed until after the birth.
why should her execution be delayed just so she can deliver a mass of dna. if that's the case, then all the women that have miscarriages say in the 3rd week of a pregnancy would likewise get delays. i think, from a pro choice perspective, as long as it isn't a baby but a fetus, the execution should go on as scheduled.
Yeah, why not? After all, she's just a mass of DNA herself, right?
I don't think your reaction is as inconsistent as it might first appear to you.
Being pro-choice is about... well, choice. In the hypothetical case of a pregnant woman on death row who's executed before the birth, her choice to *have* her wanted child would be taken away just as much as her choice to have an abortion would be taken away if she was prevented from seeking one. Neither is acceptable to me.
Surely, we shouldn't be in such a hurry to execute someone we can't wait even nearly the whole term of a pregnancy.
convicts lose a lot of rights, including chosing when she executed.
Just because convicts lose some rights doesn't mean they lose all rights. When it comes to medical bodily autonomy, I don't think that's so clear. Do we force them to donate blood? Hey, here's a solution to the blood supply shortage, let's routinely require all eligible convicts to donate blood! We've got tons of them! (Yeah, I didn't think so).
Given how indefinitely the legal process can delay executions, I really don't think 9 months to allow for birth would stand out as something extraordinary in the grand scheme of things.
And bumping up to PDXHopeful's comment, I agree. In similar terms, I'm highly in favor of criminal penalties for anyone who maliciously causes an abortion against the pregnant woman's wishes, but how the hell do you draft THAT law without it being hijacked by the anti-choice side?
I am about to compare a fetus to a pet, so bear with me. There are penalties for killing someone's pet, even though a pet owner can go get their pet put down if that is their choice. Law makers can choose how severe a penalty it is to kill someone else's pet, and the person could go get civil justice too. I think there is a good analogy here to killing someone's fetus against their wishes. Just because that fetus isn't a human being (like a pet) doesn't mean the woman carrying it doesn't place value on it and deserve some sort of justice if it is killed. But we don't have to give the fetus rights, it is the woman's right to have some justice if someone forces her fetus to abort.
I'm highly in favor of criminal penalties for anyone who maliciously causes an abortion against the pregnant woman's wishes, but how the hell do you draft THAT law without it being hijacked by the anti-choice side?
Agreed, unfortunately. It might be possible in a country where reproductive freedom is more universally accepted than in the contemporary US.
You'd have to frame the law around choice, like rape laws.
Or, we could use existing laws that penalize people more if the person they assault suffers more lasting harm, and count the unwilling termination of a pregnancy the same way we would count maiming someone as worse than injuring them in a way that heals easily.
You'd have to frame the law around consent and choice, like rape laws.
Or, we could use existing laws that penalize people more if the person they assault suffers more lasting harm, and count the unwilling termination of a pregnancy the same way we would count maiming someone as worse than injuring them in a way that heals easily.
I dunno, I've seen several medical dramas that focus on the idea that its illegal to execute a prisoner unless they're healthy. Why, I have no idea, but that has been a plotline in Grey's Anatomy and I think on House too.
The fetus didn't commit a crime, thus, woman willing, it deserves a chance to live. If the woman wants an abortion, that's different. But if she doesn't, the innocent shouldn't be killed.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying that a fetus only has a "right to live" or that it is a person at all if the woman wants the baby. I'm pro-choice because I believe that the government shouldn't make what is ultimately a decision about religion, and I certainly don't want the government telling me what I can or cannot do with my body (i.e. that I must keep a pregnancy). But in this case, the government is the one taking action, so it must take a stance. I don't think it should be considered an innocent baby only if the woman (who will not be the one to raise it) wants to keep it.
The thing is, to me it doesn't MATTER whether the fetus is a human being/person. The point is, nobody has the right to live inside another person against their will. So if it is a person with the same rights as any other person, it still doesn't have that right. That's what choice is about, the woman's choice to have it live in her or not. I'm of the opinion that if she wants the baby to live, they should let it live, even if it means delaying the execution. If she doesn't want the child to live, then they shouldn't.
The right to terminate a pregnancy is the right of the woman. It doesn't matter to me if the fetus/embryo is a person or not. Because it is inside the woman, the choice is hers.
The choice does not belong to the state, and the choice does not belong to someone else who would seek to do harm to the woman or whatever may be growing inside of her.
no one is taking her right to terminate her pregnancy away. it's like a guy saying he wants to donate blood or amputate his arm and the execution can't take place until he has had that procedure done. i imagine his request would not be entertained. it looks like folks want to have several definitions of what a fetus is.
All the pro-choice (I am pro-choice) is based upon the idea is that the fetus is not a child. And thus abortion is not murder but the medical procedure woman perform upon their own bodies. There is no escape or backdoor here.
That's not true. I agree with Nettle Syrup. I don't care if the fetus is a child or not.
No, there are several philosophies that drive the pro-choice position. The idea that a fetus is not a person is only one of them.
Like Nettle Syrup and Sabriel, that is not my philsophy. Mine revolves around medical bodily autonomy and the fact that we are never required to give up blood or organs for someone else, even if we are their only match and without us they'd die.
We are talking not just about any philosophy but about one which is the base for the legislation, right?
I don't know, you said "all". I guess I'm not sure what "all the pro-choice" refers to in your comment.
I think you were assuming she'd consider the fetus her baby. I think most people, whether or not they're pro-choice or anti, are going to think 'baby' before 'fetus' simply because it's a hard image to shake.
This is the one situation where I'd say "If the father wants the baby (and she's willing to give birth to the baby (not to make her sound like a birthing cow or something) then let her have the kid. Or if she wants to give it up to adoption, let her have it. If she decides it's better off being aborted via her death, then so be it.
"I'd treat it just like a traditional abortion. If it's early enough in the pregnancy, the woman should choose whether she wants to continue the pregnancy. If not, execution should go on as planned. If she does want to continue it, the execution should be delayed until after the birth."
Well said.
I think that we have too much to lose if the fetus is established as a 'murderable' child by law.
However, I think that said woman should be allowed to have an abortion, or to carry to term prior to execution (what though I think it cruel), if she wants.
Personally I believe the state has the right to execute the woman. Once prisoners are put on death row they are given basic rights on a time line. Now I'm going to assume having a child is a woman's basic right.
If the fetus is viable before her scheduled execution she should be given the option to extract it. However, if the fetus is not viable, pregnancy is not more fundamental than the woman's right to life. By receiving a sentence of death row the woman gives up her right to life, as well as all her other basic rights, at the time of her execution.
By saying the prisoner should be able to carry the fetus to term is the same as saying the right to have a child is more important than the right to life.
If something lives inside of you it is YOU who decides what happens to it.
nobody else decides whether the baby lives or dies, so the government can't kill the baby along with the mother (even if the baby is less than 3 months along). Because the baby does not live inside the belly of the government, it lives inside the belly of the woman. It is only SHE who decides what happens to it.
But the question is, what if she uses it on purpose for a stay of execution? This is a hypothetical of course, but what if she somehow manages to keep having sex with guards often enough that she keeps getting pregnant and they keep having to put off her execution? Isn't that unfair to the other people on death row who do get executed on time?
(I'm not arguing either side here, I haven't really made up my mind. But I think that is part of the question that hasn't really been addressed.)
I know your question is hypothetical, but if it's a matter of the inmate having sex with guards then the problem can be easily rectified by ensuring that the guards don't keep have sex with the death row inmates (or any inmates hopefully). And if the state can't accomplish that task, then the state itself is complicit here in the abuse of the system.
(I'm not arguing either side either...)
Well, even if its only once. If we don't consider an embryo or fetus as something with rights, if we're only concerned with the rights of the woman carrying it, then why does she suddenly have the right to have a stay of execution for 9 months when a non-pregnant death row inmate would not?
Your position is that the baby in the prisoner's womb has no right to live.
The government's decision, which is not challenged in this scenario, is that the prisoner has no right to live. How do you add the two together and decided that the non-rights of the baby cancel out the lack of rights of the prisoner? Neither the prisoner nor the baby has a right to live, but . . . what?
some folks are simply being hypocritical about this issue. doing what is just here would require ad admission that the fetus is instead human life
I have really grappled with how to think about abortion, and in a similar bio-ethics class very much appreciated the analogy of an acorn and an oak tree. We acknowledge that there's a distinct difference between a full-grown oak and an acorn -- the acorn has potential to be an oak tree, to contribute good things to the forest and et cetera -- but it is not, and the stigma attached to stepping on an acorn is different from that of cutting down an oak tree.
Obviously people are not trees, but a fetus in the womb, prior to viability, is not a child, is not a baby. Certainly has the potential to be, but is not.
ive stated before that an acorn is no different than sperm or a human egg. its different after its been fertilized. at that point it isnt just the potential to be a tree, but at that point it's already on its way, like a baby
I think I've seen you state this before, and I think you need to realize that the acorn is analogous to a fertilized egg, not an unfertilized egg or sperm. The acorn already includes all the DNA it needs to grow into a tree, all it needs is a nurturing environment (some nice soil, analogous to a womb). It does not have to be fertilized by another tree.
I would find it quite hard to believe that a person would be prosecuted, convicted, sentenced and executed in the 9-10 months it takes to carry a pregnancy to term.
It still, ultimately, is the woman's right to choose. If she chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth, that decision should trump the state's timeline to death. Yes, she is a convicted felon, but she still has basic human rights until the day she is executed.
If she chooses to abort, I believe this should be done in a separate procedure from the execution. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a state to execute a pregnant woman, no matter what the situation.
I think the hypothetical situation would be more along the lines of she had sex with (or was raped by) a prison guard, and thus became pregnant after her execution was already scheduled.
Still, her basic human rights would still apply, in my book.
Of course, the world doesn't go by my book... :)
Well, when we decide to execute her we're removing a major right. A person sentenced to death doesn't get to decide to put off their sentence. I don't think they even get to put it off for reasons like volunteering to donate a kidney. So why should she get to put it off when other prisoners don't? Remember, we're assuming here that she committed some horrible crime and was convicted and senteced to death for it. She's not a nice person.
I can't really argue the ethics of executing a pregnant woman over a not-pregnant woman, because I just flat out abhor the death penalty under all and any circumstances.
Basically I feel that an embryo has a right to life, but a woman also has a right to choose what happens to her body. That's why abortion is such a tricky issue, and why I believe that although the law should protect a woman's choice, abortion is ethical in some cases and not in others. The state on the other hand has no right to choose what happens to a woman's body, so it's not complicated at all. The hypothetical situation at hand implies that the state does have a right over people's bodies and lives because it can execute them, so it complicates the issue.