This module addressed reproductive rights and choice, which entails some pretty contentious issues. One of these was addressed in the reading on maternal vs. fetal rights, which posed the difficult question of whose rights should prevail, the mother's or the fetus's, in a pregnancy where one party's health or comfort may be compromised relative to the other's.
One case was that of a pregnant woman "unwilling to cut down on her drinking" at the behest of her doctor, who has "repeatedly advised [the woman] of the risks her drinking poses to the child she has chosen to have." The argument in favor of maternal rights cites an individual's "right to freedom of choice and control over his or her own life" as a reason to avoid forced treatment of pregnant women, saying that "the decisions a woman makes during pregnancy are based on her own circumstances, her own values, her own preferences. Others have no right to impose on her their own judgments about what they think is best for her and her fetus..."
I think the fundamental issue here is choice. In such a case, it is the woman's choice to carry the pregnancy to term - by making this decision, she is implicitly assuming responsibility for not only her own health and body but also her child's, and this carries with it the obligation to take care of that body and respect it. This argument also asserts that to "require pregnant women to undergo surgery or change their lifestyles in order to benefit a fetus is to demand from them something over and above what we demand from the rest of society." As I said before, if a woman chooses to carry out her pregnancy, she is also electing to assume the risks and responsibilities that come along with pregnancy. The "rest of society" isn't quite relevant here, because they either cannot or have not chosen to (or have chosen not to?) become pregnant, which can and does entail lifestyle modification "in order to benefit a fetus."
Another argument is that if society does engage in the forced treatment of pregnant women, what is to stop those in charge from imposing further, more severe violations of and restrictions on pregnant women's lives? For example, "If pregnant women are incarcerated to prevent them from heavy drinking, will we also seize them for drinking coffee or exercising too little, each of which could pose some risk to a fetus according to some doctors." It is a valid concern, but I think a little alarmist in nature.
Another topic I want to address is the use surgery or medication during pregnancy to prevent handicaps, which relates back to the concept of disability discussed in Module 12. The article states that "The discomfort or inconvenience of taking a medication or undergoing a low-risk surgerical procedure is a small price to pay to prevent a child from being born with handicaps." My question is, are these practices and procedures really necessary? Yes, it is nice and well-intentioned and even admirable to try to avoid and prevent these maladies and handicaps, but are they really so bad? They might make life more challenging or more difficult in many respects, but shouldn't we, as a society, embrace all people, of all abilities? By "fixing" these "afflictions," are we eliminating diversity, striving for perfection, trying to create a superlative, or at least ultra-normative human race? How ideal are these goals, really?
I have to agree with you about couples that fix disabilities of their child before the child is even born. I think that a lot of couples have to have 'the perfect child' even though their child should be considered perfect to them no matter what. Your child is your child. It doesn't matter what they look like or if they have a disability, it's your child and you should love them for all of their flaws. Fixing one of their flaws pre-birth is almost a slap in the face to a child. It's like saying "You weren't perfect in this aspect, and we didn't love that, so we fixed it!".
ReplyDeleteAlso, babies that were engineered (sometimes called petri-dish babies), kind of baffles me. It's almost like people are calling themselves 'God' (or again - whatever they believe in) and trying to create the perfect person.
Or - like in 'My sister's Keeper' - trying to create a baby that will essentially be used to compromise for the flaws in another of the couple's child. I don't see the point. People are willing to damage one child in order to benefit another child who is already damaged in so many ways. Yes, situations are unfortunate, but you are supposed to make the best of the time that you have with these situations, not constantly look for ways to improve.