This decision is a social one, not dictated by biology. A scientific inquiry reveals only that the fetus is a living entity, as are the egg and the sperm that combine to form the fetus, which has the potential to develop into a recognizable person given approximately nine months of nurturing in the woman's womb. The legal status that society chooses to confer upon the fetus is dependent upon the goals being pursued and the effect of such status on competing values. In the course of defining the word "alive," Professor Arthur Leff offered an insightful and concise discussion of the relevant considerations in determining under what circumstances the fetus should be considered a legal person: Important to all these legal problems is the recognition that they are legal (and ethical) problems, dependent not on any deceptively 'natural' biological definition of life, but on social and legal decisions. In 'nature,' things just are; only people classify.. . .[Tihe relevant legal question ought not to be whether a foetus is 'alive' or 'a person' from the moment of conception, or the moment of viability, etc., as if the question were one of natural rather than social decision. A legal decision will still have to be made to whom the law ought to give protection and at what cost, paid by who[m]. . ..
Courts and legislatures are increasingly being called upon to restrict the autonomy of pregnant women by requiring them to behave in ways that others determine are best for the fetuses they carry. The state should not attempt to transform pregnant women into ideal baby-making machines. Pregnant women make decisions about their behavior in the context of the rest of their lives, with all the attendant complexities and pressures. Our interest in helping future children by improving prenatal care would best be furthered by helping pregnant women to make informed, less constrained choices, not by punishing women or depriving them of choices altogether.
, Congress presented President Bill Clinton with a dilemma. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 included a provision requiring the armed forces to discharge individuals infected with the human immunodeficiency virus ("HIV"), including asymptomatic individuals. 1 President Clinton concluded that this provision "violate[d] equal protection by requiring the discharge of qualified service members living with HIV who are medically able to serve, without furthering any legitimate governmental purpose." 2 Yet the bill also appropriated $265 billion for military programs the President deemed "of great importance" to national security interests. 3 President Clinton had vetoed an earlier version of the law due in part to the same HIV provision, 4 but decided against a second veto because of the military's need for the money appropriated by the bill. 5 President Clinton then
In "Expectant Fathers, Abortion, and Embryos," Dara Purvis evaluates the concepts of intent and gender stereotypes in connection with "expectational fathers" in the related contexts of abortion and assisted reproductive technologies. This comment seeks to build upon Purvis's own analysis to obviate her concern that abortion discourse promotes harmful stereotypes of men as disinterested fathers. To the contrary, for men — no less than for women — a desire to avoid or terminate pregnancy is fully consistent with loving and shared parenthood of existing or future children. The same individuals who choose to become parents at other times in their long reproductive lives will use contraception and have abortions. In fact, most women who have abortions already have children. Policies that empower men and women to avoid unintended pregnancy are the sensible, win-win, front-line approach to avoid disputes over abortion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.