A woman’s choice should not be ignored simply because she is pregnant and it certainly should not be ignored because she may have possibly sort of not known exactly what she wanted.
Compelling state interest is complex. Sometimes the state has an interest in property, which we know because of eminent domain, as Colleen brought up. The state taking away people’s homes, businesses, or land is not the same as the state denying a woman the right to have her decision upheld. Also, the when the state has a compelling interest in property, it can be about anyone’s property. When the state has a compelling interest in overriding a living will, it is only about the living will of a pregnant woman. Ashley states in her argument that, “It is also pertinent to clarify that the state has a legitimate interest in the lives of its citizens, especially in those of pregnant women.” The state does not have a compelling state interest in the lives of pregnant women. If it did, it would not be disrespecting them by ignoring their requests. The state believes that it has a compelling interest in the fetus. If the state felt like it could do what it wanted to comatose incompetent people based on its interests, why do they not use every single body for science? Is it not in the best interest for the state to learn more about live-saving procedures, different diseases and disorders? It is because there is a sense of dignity involved. People have a right to choose what is done to their body and the state has to respect that. It should be no different with pregnant women. The state does not have a compelling interest in fetuses.
Stating that there is a compelling state interest in all fetuses contradicts what has been established in Roe v. Wade (and many cases thereafter) which is that competent women are allowed to abort their fetuses. Ashley argues that, “If she wanted to end its life she would have done so in the first trimester. Does the fact she did not seem to indicate she wanted to have the baby? Of course it does”. No it does not. The fact that she did not abort her baby indicates that while she was alive, she wanted to have a baby. She may have decided in her living will that if she is in a state, in which she would be kept alive by machines, and will not be around to raise this child, that bringing a baby into the world would be mean. She may have decided that since she would not be there to care for this baby, it should not be brought into a harsh, scary place all alone.
There are many what ifs involved in this sort of situation. What if the pregnant woman has no living will and the family wishes for her to be let go but the state will not allow it? As Karen brings up, what about when the “woman does specifically address her wishes to stop life support should she become incompetent while pregnant” and the state will ignore this direct request, regardless of what the family says. The family’s means of getting what they want should not be through the state’s exercise of ignoring a woman’s living will. Karin suggests, “Basically since the woman’s humanness as already died (in her lack of ability to reason, (the family could grieve her loss and take comfort in the idea that her body is being used to potential life”. Forcing a family to go against the woman’s wishes and keeping her alive longer than she would have wanted does not allow much room for grieving. In fact, it is not known that every family would want this baby, although many of the comments suggested that there is no question about it, why wouldn’t the family want to, as Karin says it, “preserve part of the woman who is dying”. Ashley also brings up the point stating that respecting a woman’s living will “would rob families and others that cared for her of the opportunity to keep a part of her with them, in the form of a child.” Is it not likely that if a woman has a living will to be taken off life support she has discussed this with her family? Even if she hasn’t, isn’t it likely that her family and others that cared for her would want to RESPECT what she wanted and not ignore it? The state going against what someone’s loved one has decided will be harder on the family emotionally and financially.
Seriously consider finances, babies cost a lot of money and the mother will not be there to help with this. In fact, as Irma brings up, the woman may have chosen “not to be sustained on life support is due to their concern for their family’s financial resources”. It costs a fortune to be kept alive by life supporting machines. In fact, “Only Pennsylvania specifies that the state will pay the costs for keeping a pregnant woman alive against her wishes” (Roth 123). So if a woman has considered the financial burden of being kept alive by machines and chosen to end life support in the event of incompetency, the state should respect that. The state is not doing anyone a favor by keeping her and her costly fetus alive.
Fetus vs. pregnant woman, this seems to be one of the bigger battles here. Haylie asks the questions, “Doesn’t the fetus have the right to live? What harm does it cause the woman to carry the baby for the remainder of the term?” It actually is a lot of harm. Why is it appropriate to disregard the woman’s constitutional right to privacy and to use her body as an incubator for another human being without her consent? Haylie argues that, “most people have a problem removing the life support of an infant. What makes an unborn infant two weeks earlier any different?” The infant has not been born, nor does it have the right to decide whether or not it is taken off life support. In fact, in the situation that Haylie suggests, it would be the parent’s decision anyway. Sort of like how the mother is deciding this for herself now.
There is a serious problem with part of Ashley’s argument, since it completely degrades women in general. Ashley states, “For instance, how do you know the woman was truly aware of the consequences of her actions when she made the will?” We don’t know exactly that she knew every fact and figure or what everyone around her though. We can be sure that she was making the best decision she knew how to at the time, with the information we had. Why is she being discriminated against based on an ASSUMPTION that she is not intelligent enough to know what she was doing? Ashley is suggesting that women should not be trusted to make a decision on their own and that the state should step in and make decisions for them. Through our many class discussions it has been concluded that the state should not withhold rights based on the idea that someone might regret something. The state should also not make decisions for pregnant women because they possibly did not know what they were taking about when they expressed what they wanted.
What needs to happen is that all living wills need to have explicit directions regarding pregnancy, so that all of the “what ifs…” are not so confusing. The state also needs to respect the decisions of pregnant women and uphold their living wills.
Rachel Roth, Making Women Pay: The Hidden Costs of Fetal Rights, Excerpt from Chapter 5
When do citizens stop being protected by the government? At what point are their rights “over”? It seems like death would be the answer; when a person dies then his or her reciprocal citizen-government contract is no longer effective.
This isn’t quite true; even once a person has died they are still protected by the government. People can specify whether they’d like to be cremated or buried, who will inherit their possessions, etc. and the law still ensures that the rights of the deceased are respected.
Therefore, it wouldn’t be correct to say that just because a pregnant woman is “dead” (comatose, unresponsive, incompetent… however you want to say it) that she has forfeited her rights. She still has those rights, which include the right to die and the right to procure an abortion. Both of these matters are at stake in this issue, and both are dependent on one another; in order for a woman in this situation to have her right to die, which she indicated previously in her living will, she must utilize her right to abort the fetus. Seeing that these are two matters are legal (albeit there are restrictions), I cannot understand how any desires (however well-intentioned) of the family would override her decision. Just because the family might want to take care of the unborn child doesn’t justify ignoring her legal request. It certainly doesn’t work that way with an abortion; a woman is free to get an abortion regardless of whether or not her family expressed a desire to raise her child. Their opinions don’t matter- it’s hers that counts.
Thus, I found Mara’s second argument to be well done. I particularly liked her point at the end. She says that disregarding a woman’s living will based on the possibility that she wasn’t “truly aware of the consequences of her actions” IS degrading to the intelligence and independence of women. We see this all the time; society double-checking to make sure a woman knows what she’s getting herself into. For example, this insulting practice is applied in situations of abortion; the mandatory 24 hour waiting period some states have, designed to have women “make sure” they want to carry through with the abortion, suggests that women are too weak and uncertain to make a qualified decision. I think we need to give more credit to people and conclude that what they have written in a legal document (a living will) is what they want.