real life wrote: Should the woman have the right to do whatever she choses with the unborn?
What if she were to hire a doctor to remove the arms and legs of the unborn in an in-utero surgery (similar to the technique used in the pics that baddog1 posted) , because she wanted him/her to be born without limbs?
OK by you?
Since it's not a living human being at that point, are there any moral problems with that?
Why is depriving the unborn of a limb(s) any different than depriving him of a life?
If the fetus is non-sentient, IMO it is her property and she has the right to do whatever she likes with it, including having it cut up and the parts used for transplants or medical research. I doubt if any sane woman would do it, even if she could find a doctor willing to do such surgery or a market for fetal parts.
But if she plans on allowing it to reach sentience, she has a moral obligation to keep it intact and give it the best possible chance at life through good nutrition, avoiding smoke, drugs and alcohol, and getting prenatal medical care.
I read that some deaf parents refuse to allow cochlear implants for their profoundly deaf babies because they want them to grow up relying on sign language instead of hearing. Granted, they did not take a specific action like cutting off a limb to handicap their child, but if the implant is done later in life when the child can choose for himself it is not nearly as effective. Do they have a moral right to deny treatment?