Pregnancy and prenatal harm to offspring arise many issues. What is the right balance of the fetuses "rights" and the mother 's rights of bodily integrity? Finding the accommodating balance is both difficult and challenging. Both the fetus and mother must be analyzed and evaluated to come to an ultimatum deciding what is best for the unborn child, while also considering the mother 's rights to autonomy and bodily integrity.
Robertson and Schulman say, "Ethical analysis must balance the mother 's interest in freedom and bodily integrity against the offspring 's interest in being born healthy. This balance will vary with the burdens of altering the mother 's conduct and the risk of prenatally caused harm to offspring. Depending on the balance of risk, benefits, and burdens, prenatal conduct may be discretionary, advisable, prudent, or even obligatory..." (Robertson and Schulman, p.752). With this being said, they argue that individuals can be held accountable for the harm they cause to their child before birth. A concern is the balancing of the child 's welfare against the mother 's right of liberty and bodily integrity. How do we know if the child 's welfare is significantly more important than the mother 's own rights? The mother should not be dismissed of her rights altogether because of the child 's welfare. Prenatal conduct is something we all like to think of as beyond doubt or question, but this is not always the case. Like Robertson and Schulman say, depending on the situation prenatal conduct may be voluntary, sensible, wise, or even demanded. Altogether, when factoring pregnancy and prenatal harm things turn into a slippery slope. Another concern is informing expecting mothers of potential risks to their unborn child and also providing entail services to them. Many mothers have the necessary recourses to be educated and informed about potential risks involving their unborn child. But, in some cases there are mothers that cannot or are unable to seek the needed information or services to prevent prenatal harm to their offspring. When this type of situation arises forceful measures may be justifiable by the state on behalf of the child 's welfare. Robertson and Schulman said, "Given the harm that their behavior will cause offspring and the reasonableness of expecting them to act differently, some persons have proposed that coercive measures, including postbirth sanctions and even prebith seizures, be employed when education and counseling fail" (Robertson and Schulman, p. 752). Most find this a bit of extreme and unlikeable, and it seems diminishing of pregnant women 's personal choices. Rarely will cases like this be proven justifiable. Robertson and Schulman said, "Similarly, prosecution would rarely be appropriate for conduct that occurs prior to viability because of the difficulty in establishing maternal culpability" (Robertson and Schulman, p. 754). With this being said, they point out that many of the cases presented do …show more content…
Munson said, "Minkoff and Paltrow argue that legislation expanding the definition of "child" to include fetuses has adverse effects for women carrying a child to term" (Munson, p. 756). In saying this, the fetuses rights have dismissed pregnant women 's rights (Minkoff and Paltrow, p. 757). Expecting mothers have to give up the right to good paying jobs. Minkoff and Paltrow says, "The fetal 'right ' to health and life has cost women heir bodily integrity /.../, their liberty /.../, and in some cases their lives /.../" (Minkoff and Paltrow, p. 757). In saying this, third parties are being allowed to speak on behalf of the fetus and out ruling the mother. This is a huge concern when it comes to pregnancy and prenatal harm. The mother that is carrying the child still has rights to autonomy and control over herself. Yet, the fetus also has the right to life and right to life without harm. Establishing a parity between the life of a fetus and the life of the mother is very difficult. Minkoff and Paltrow said, "In so doing, they suggest a need to balance rights when those rights appear to conflict with each other, and potentially to subordinate the rights of the women to those of the fetus" (Minkoff and Paltrow, p. 757). In saying this, it grants them rights previously denied to born individuals (Minkoff and Paltrow, p.758). There is no way to guarantee a pregnant woman has the same
Robertson and Schulman say, "Ethical analysis must balance the mother 's interest in freedom and bodily integrity against the offspring 's interest in being born healthy. This balance will vary with the burdens of altering the mother 's conduct and the risk of prenatally caused harm to offspring. Depending on the balance of risk, benefits, and burdens, prenatal conduct may be discretionary, advisable, prudent, or even obligatory..." (Robertson and Schulman, p.752). With this being said, they argue that individuals can be held accountable for the harm they cause to their child before birth. A concern is the balancing of the child 's welfare against the mother 's right of liberty and bodily integrity. How do we know if the child 's welfare is significantly more important than the mother 's own rights? The mother should not be dismissed of her rights altogether because of the child 's welfare. Prenatal conduct is something we all like to think of as beyond doubt or question, but this is not always the case. Like Robertson and Schulman say, depending on the situation prenatal conduct may be voluntary, sensible, wise, or even demanded. Altogether, when factoring pregnancy and prenatal harm things turn into a slippery slope. Another concern is informing expecting mothers of potential risks to their unborn child and also providing entail services to them. Many mothers have the necessary recourses to be educated and informed about potential risks involving their unborn child. But, in some cases there are mothers that cannot or are unable to seek the needed information or services to prevent prenatal harm to their offspring. When this type of situation arises forceful measures may be justifiable by the state on behalf of the child 's welfare. Robertson and Schulman said, "Given the harm that their behavior will cause offspring and the reasonableness of expecting them to act differently, some persons have proposed that coercive measures, including postbirth sanctions and even prebith seizures, be employed when education and counseling fail" (Robertson and Schulman, p. 752). Most find this a bit of extreme and unlikeable, and it seems diminishing of pregnant women 's personal choices. Rarely will cases like this be proven justifiable. Robertson and Schulman said, "Similarly, prosecution would rarely be appropriate for conduct that occurs prior to viability because of the difficulty in establishing maternal culpability" (Robertson and Schulman, p. 754). With this being said, they point out that many of the cases presented do …show more content…
Munson said, "Minkoff and Paltrow argue that legislation expanding the definition of "child" to include fetuses has adverse effects for women carrying a child to term" (Munson, p. 756). In saying this, the fetuses rights have dismissed pregnant women 's rights (Minkoff and Paltrow, p. 757). Expecting mothers have to give up the right to good paying jobs. Minkoff and Paltrow says, "The fetal 'right ' to health and life has cost women heir bodily integrity /.../, their liberty /.../, and in some cases their lives /.../" (Minkoff and Paltrow, p. 757). In saying this, third parties are being allowed to speak on behalf of the fetus and out ruling the mother. This is a huge concern when it comes to pregnancy and prenatal harm. The mother that is carrying the child still has rights to autonomy and control over herself. Yet, the fetus also has the right to life and right to life without harm. Establishing a parity between the life of a fetus and the life of the mother is very difficult. Minkoff and Paltrow said, "In so doing, they suggest a need to balance rights when those rights appear to conflict with each other, and potentially to subordinate the rights of the women to those of the fetus" (Minkoff and Paltrow, p. 757). In saying this, it grants them rights previously denied to born individuals (Minkoff and Paltrow, p.758). There is no way to guarantee a pregnant woman has the same