Comment: The life wasnt invited inside

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Doctrine of Estoppel (see in situ)

The life wasnt invited inside

The life wasnt invited inside the mother, it was created inside the mother.

I agree that "invited" would apply if the fetus was alive before being inside the mother and the mother brought it inside her without the fetuses consent; in this case the mother would clearly be estopped from removing it. (In the same way that if I invite you on my airplane, I 'd be estopped from kicking you off of it in mid air.)

However, because the fetus didn't exist as a life before existing inside the mother, there was nothing to consent in the first place. (It'd be like if I bring an inanimate object on my airplane, the fact that, in the time before it was on my airplane, it wasn't alive, it didn't need to consent to being brought on the airplane.)

(Note that the main point of my admittedly imperfect analogy re: an airplane is only to clarify that although in common speech we talk a lot about consent being needed, technically what is needed is consent only for 'rights bearing units'. So while people are 'rights bearing units', rocks arent, and neither are things that don't yet exist. So even if I condede that a fetus that actually exists is a 'rights bearing unit', in the split second before it existed in the womb there was no 'rights bearing unit' in existence from which she would need consent in the first place. She didn't take a preexisting 'rights bearing unit' from a better place and place it in a worse place.)