In accordance with this argument justification for removal of the one body from another is it does not have consent to be there. Obtaining the woman’s consent to be in her womb prior to conception is for the fetus impossible.
I believe it is always implied that a woman is not granting consent for someone to use her body unless she has granted it before the action takes place. Just as the driver of the car is implied to not grant the hospital to use his body if his strikes someone and they need his body to survive and recover in 9 months.
On the issue of consent - is it not arbitrary to impose a requirement of consent where it is impossible to obtain? It is impossible for the fetus to obtain consent of it’s own volition prior to conception.
Where it is impossible to obtain, then you use a medical proxy if the individual is unable to communicate and has not setup a living will; such as a close relative.
But in the case of everyone that has been born, consent is required by both parties for the use of both bodies involved. If Person A does not consent to a blood donation, regardless if Person B needs the blood donation for their survival, even if they have already been hooked up to Person A without Person A being aware that was what happened to them, then no one gets a blood donation. But for the preborn, they get to have that blood donation even if Person A does not want to have their body used that way and if Person B has already been hooked up to Person A without Person A being aware that was what happened to them.
On the issue of force - the fetus did come to be in the womb of it’s own volition and through use of force. The fetus had no control over the circumstances in which it came to be there.
We don’t run into the issue of someone finding themselves already hooked up to someone else for their survival because we all recognize that as medical assault, even if the person was the victim of the driver. The driver and the victim both have to give consent for their bodies to be hooked up. But if both are not able to communicate, then medical proxies are used for both. If only one is able to communicate and does not give consent to save the other person’s life, even if they are already hooked up, then they have to unhook the two people, even if it results in the person’s death. I don’t know how that changes the legal issue if it goes into a manslaughter case at that point though.
The issue then is once the fetus is in the womb, should it then require the consent of the woman to remain there? If the answer is yes and a change in the law is advocated in terms of placing a demand on the fetus to remain in the womb, this is problematic.
This only becomes problematic if we have a system where the victim’s consent to survive the event supersedes the consent of the perpetrator’s right to their body’s use. Currently now, the perpetrator’s consent is still needed to save the life of their victims, when the use of the perpetrator’s body is required to save the victim’s life. Both parties have to agree to have the medical procedure applied to them. If one is not able to give or remove consent, then a medical proxy can be used. But if only one of the parties does not grant consent, then the medical procedure can not take place.
The fetus has no means of meeting it’s legal obligations other than sole dependence on the woman to give effect to it’s right to life and right to bodily autonomy. In in accordance with the arguments presented here the fetus is not the woman’s body. It is in her body, but not actually her body. The fetus is being given recognition as a distinct and different person to the woman - being recognized as human and having a right to life, and requiring the consent of the woman to remain were it is. In which case, does this argument in effect grant what is being argued as arbitrary? Complete control over another’s body?
The fetus was never in question on whether or not is was a person. “Fetus” is just a term used in this discussion as to describe the current developmental state of the person. Same as the “child” label or “adolescent”.
I see the problem that the discussion is having is the idea that a random person A discovers themselves being already hooked up to another person B. Person A was not aware this was happening to them, but they are in the position of their survival is directly dependent upon Person’s B body. We don’t find this to issue in cases where people are already born because that would be medical assault to start with and Person B could sue the hospital for performing that medical procedure on Person B; even if Person B was the cause of the issue to begin with.
But that is where a third party hooked up the two people, but what about if it was Person B that hooked up Person A to them. We don’t ever run into that in cases where people are already born. So this is ultimately where the legal issue stands as I see it. Person B would first off be charged with assault for hooking up Person A to them, and then Person B would be held accountable for the medical outcome of Person A. So if Person A dies, then would Person B would charged with murder at that point? So is it the case that the fetus is being hooked up to the mother or is the fetus hooking itself up to the mother? Or is it both? If both, then the mother has a right to consent. If it is the fetus, then the mother has a right to consent. If it’s the mother, then the she’s responsible, just as the driver is responsible, legally, for the lives of the people on the side walk and can be charged with manslaughter.
