N
Nyarlathotep
Guest
That's actually an extremely good question, Asmodeus (and on a completely unrelated side note, I am very fond of your username).
I had to think about this one for a minute or two. To begin with, I think Jehovah's Witnesses are crazy, but that's my opinion on most religious folks whose religions impose potentially harmful restrictions on behavior or lifestyle.
Personally, however, where I find I draw the line is when the fetus leaves the body. For better or worse, the woman's choice must be the final say in the matter, because once you start forcing women to do something they don't want with their bodies in one area, it can create a problematic attitude towards the subject in general. Until the child is born, the mother's choices have to reign supreme. I may not like what a woman chooses to do. In fact, I may feel horrible about it. However, preventing her from doing what she wishes crosses an ethical boundary I am not comfortable with.
However, the question of caring for an infant or toddler once out of the womb needn't necessarily be in her hands. At that point, the child is its own entity completely, with its own human rights. In any case, the child doesn't directly affect her health in the way that a fetus does.
However, your example of Jehovah's Witnesses is a whole other grey area because it starts into the whole debate on religious freedom and earthly laws. I can't say I know what would be best in that situation. I must admit that my gut sense of right and wrong inclines me to advocate forcibly treating the child under such circumstances, but again I don't know whether that's the right or wrong answer because it's imposing my own worldview onto someone else.
I had to think about this one for a minute or two. To begin with, I think Jehovah's Witnesses are crazy, but that's my opinion on most religious folks whose religions impose potentially harmful restrictions on behavior or lifestyle.
Personally, however, where I find I draw the line is when the fetus leaves the body. For better or worse, the woman's choice must be the final say in the matter, because once you start forcing women to do something they don't want with their bodies in one area, it can create a problematic attitude towards the subject in general. Until the child is born, the mother's choices have to reign supreme. I may not like what a woman chooses to do. In fact, I may feel horrible about it. However, preventing her from doing what she wishes crosses an ethical boundary I am not comfortable with.
However, the question of caring for an infant or toddler once out of the womb needn't necessarily be in her hands. At that point, the child is its own entity completely, with its own human rights. In any case, the child doesn't directly affect her health in the way that a fetus does.
However, your example of Jehovah's Witnesses is a whole other grey area because it starts into the whole debate on religious freedom and earthly laws. I can't say I know what would be best in that situation. I must admit that my gut sense of right and wrong inclines me to advocate forcibly treating the child under such circumstances, but again I don't know whether that's the right or wrong answer because it's imposing my own worldview onto someone else.