When becoming pregnant, one must obtain and practice the skills it takes to become a healthy mother. Yet, in some cases, some women fall short of this due to substance abuse, disorders and/or other external factors. The case of Melissa Rowland is a rather compelling, yet prime example of procreative responsibility. With a record of; felony larceny, two counts of child endangerment and murder. Melissa Rowland was a single mother who had been impregnated four different times and suffered from an arrange of issues. She was diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder, which can be classified as a behavioral disorder. As for Melissa, ODD affected her significantly, “physicians define ODD as a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior …show more content…
The moral status of her one living child was not taken into much consideration. With physicians and authorities jumping to conclusions, the time taken to respond to this case was perceived as relatively short. When it comes to moral status of a human being, one must consider whether someone qualifies for moral consideration. In this case, twin B’s moral status was not taken into consideration. The rights of pregnant women, is an everlasting controversy, “when physicians’ concerns about fetal well being are allowed to supersede both a woman’s judgment about what is best for her family and her right to safeguard her bodily integrity, then this is no principled limitation on state power to police pregnancy and punish pregnant women” (Minkoff, Paltrow, 2013). With that being said, the physicians in this case did not express concern for the fetal well-being, and even the well-being of twin B when she was born. The clear evidence that Melissa did not receive immediate treatment for her concerns should have been a red flag for the physicians from the beginning. In her case, it was clearly stated that the well-being of her other children was significantly poor. Also, that Melissa was unstable. Yet, Melissa received lieu of her imprisonment and was given her surviving child for the time being. Until, she failed to perform simple probation stipulations. Sadly, in my opinion, the surviving twin should have been taken from Melissa through child protective services at the time of birth. As physicians, and as supported, they were allowed to overlook the ability of Melissa’s parenting and do what is best for twin A, and Melissa. Which then, Melissa should have faced her punishment received by court orders. Now let me remind you, Melissa did not comply with her stipulations and her child was removed after the
Imagine…the birth of a human being into the world. 9 months of endless anticipation leading to someone’s first chance at seeing the world for the first time. While some enjoy the result of a pregnancy, leading to a new human being entering life, some are not so fond, or just can’t be in such a situation. Abortion is the supposed “cure” to this problem and is, for the most part, done safely. However, one of the factors stopping someone from committing an abortion is the consideration of moral status on the child.
“I argue that it is personhood, and not genetic humanity, which is the fundamental basis for membership in the moral community” (Warren 166). Warren’s primary argument for abortion’s permissibility is structured around her stance that fetuses are not persons. This argument relies heavily upon her six criteria for personhood: A being’s sentience, emotionality, reason, capacity for communication, self-awareness, and having moral agencies (Warren 171-172). While this list seems sound in considering an average, healthy adult’s personhood, it neither accounts for nor addresses the personhood of infants, mentally ill individuals, or the developmentally challenged. Sentience is one’s ability to consciously feel and perceive things around them. While it is true that all animals and humans born can feel and perceive things within their environment, consider a coma patient, an individual suspended in unconsciousness and unable to move their own body for indeterminate amounts of time. While controversial, this person, whom could be in the middle of an average life, does not suddenly become less of a person
A woman in particular by the name of Stephanie Jorge has experienced what it is like to be pregnant and in prison. She endured the harsh realities of how the prison system treats women that are pregnant while incarcerated. Her story is just one of many today that serve time in state facilities.
There are three types of wrongful birth cases (Knudsen, 2011). Firstly, the failure of a sterilization procedure. Secondly, the failure caused by the care provider to inform the parents-to-be of any birth defects or abnormal in their unborn child. Thirdly, the failure of an abortion attempt (Knudsen, 2011). When a plaintiff is making a wrongful birth lawsuit against someone the plaintiff must prove to the court that the health care provider was negligent and should be held responsible for their actions (Knudsen, 2011). The plaintiff must show that the health care provider owed a duty to the plaintiff, the duty was breached, and the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach. Another important key inform...
With the guidance of their physician, Baby Does’ parents chose to withhold medical care and surgery due to the conclusion still leaving the child with severe retardation. “Officials at the hospital had the Indiana Juvenile Courts appoint a guardian to determine whether or not to perform the surgery. The court finally ruled in favor of the parents and upheld their right to informed medical decision” (Resnik, 2011). Because of the decision made to withhold surgery and medical care, Baby Doe died five days later of dehydration and pneumonia.
The facts of this case show that Roe, who at the time was a single woman, decided to challenge the State of Texas’s abortions laws. The law in that state stated that it was a felony to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 1973). At the time many illegal abortions were being performed in back alleys and in very unsanitary conditions. Therefore, some states began to loosen up on abortion restrictions, in which some women found it easy to travel to another state where the abortion laws were less restrictive and they could find a doctor was willing to endorse the medical requirement for an abortion. Unfortunately, less fortunate or poor women could seldom travel outside their own state to get the treatment, which started to raise questions of fairness. Also, many of the laws were vague; therefore many doctors really didn’t know whether they were committing ...
While most expectant mothers are planning for baby showers, shopping for maternity clothes and preparing the baby’s nursery, the incarcerated mother-to-be has to remain in a constant state of alertness and preparedness for situations that can put her and her unborn baby at risk, in an environment that is both intimidating and routinely violent. (Hutchinson et. al., 2008)
In 2011, Jennie McCormack was arrested for taking a pill called RU-486, “the abortion pill” (Hass). RU-486 is a drug only approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and is for women to use “up to the 49th day after their last menstrual period.” The woman takes two pills to “cause the death of the fetus” (Considering Abortion). McCormack, having a total of three kids, did not have the money for a 500 dollar trip to the nearest clinic, two-and-a-half-hours away. Thinking of her children, McCormack called her sister and asked her to buy the pill online for 200 dollars. Jennie thought she was twelve weeks along, but after she took the mifepristone and misoprostol, the RU-486 drugs, she turned out to be between eighteen and twenty-one weeks. When the fetus came out of her, she was terrified and called her friend, who then called his sister. The sister reported Jennie to the police. Idaho, where Jennie lives, has a 1927 law making a woman inducing her own abortion a five year prison sentence. Jennie’s case was taken to court and was later dropped due to the lack of evidence. During the second time this case was taken to court, neither the pro-choice side nor the pro-life side of abortion really wanted to do anything with this who...
There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.
A pregnant women committed a crime and must serve a 10 ten prison sentence, she is at a crossroads with what to do with the baby, keep it in jail with her or let it die on the streets? The choice is obvious. Mothers should be able to have their babies with them in prison due to a variety of reasons. Having their babies with them in prison helps with the early mother-child bonding that is crucial for the lifelong success of the child, it helps the mother become a better person while reducing the recidivism rate, and because the mothers can raise their children in a safer environment compared to the streets with no assistance.
The criterion for personhood is widely accepted to consist of consciousness (ability to feel pain), reasoning, self-motivation, communication and self-awareness. When Mary Anne Warren states her ideas on this topic she says that it is not imperative that a person meet all of these requirements, the first two would be sufficient. We can be led to believe then that not all human beings will be considered persons. When we apply this criterion to the human beings around us, it’s obvious that most of us are part of the moral community. Although when this criterion is applied to fetuses, they are merely genetic human beings. Fetuses, because they are genetically human, are not included in the moral community and therefore it is not necessary to treat them as if they have moral rights. (Disputed Moral Issues, p.187). This idea is true because being in the moral community goes hand in hand w...
The child could have a serious disorder from something such as the Zika virus and that child or the mother of the child should not be emotionally put through that. I can see the points made by the Pro-live such as abortion is murder, but abortion will most likely stay legalised in most Australian states like it is currently, and it will most likely stay that way. There are variables that could affect her choice. She could be poor, the child could have a birth defect, and so on. Giving her a right to decide whether she should abort the baby it’s entirely her choice. What if the mother was raped or she got pregnant from incest. Would you traumatise this mother with the child of the rapist for 9 months, and would you allow an inbred child that will most likely have a disability and be put through literal
...e open to all women at any point of pregnancy, and that the woman reserves the right as a fully conscious member of the moral community to choose to carry the child or not. She argues that fetuses are not persons or members of the moral community because they don’t fulfill the five qualities of personhood she has fashioned. Warren’s arguments are valid, mostly sound, and cover just about all aspects of the overall topic. However much she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent. Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset.
For the protection of the mother’s health the State may regulate abortion. The woman comes first and then the unborn child. Those who are against abortion feel that the State has a responsi...
Parker, Michael. "The Best Possible Child." Journal of Medical Ethics 33.5 (2007): 279-283. Web. 1 Apr 2011. .