At the risk of muddying the waters here even further, there is a case to be made for both dispositions to be true. Mother and fetus are one being, mother and fetus are separate beings.
Using your statement: "Everything the mother does while pregnant is VERY important in development...her attitude, emotions, what she eats. Development hinges on the mother (I know it's obvious on most levels, but it's interesting stuff anyway as to how profound it is)."
We see that the mother's being by nature is responsible for the condition of the fetus. I've never been able to grasp the concept that they have conflicting purposes or rights, or that one has rights and the other does not. They are clearly enmeshed even as in the relationship post partum. In most literature on children's rights, the rights of a child are seen as guarded by society under the "best interests" of the child premise, entrusted to a beneficent provider/protector. In all cases there are decision makers who decide based on the best interests of the child.
Decision making is contingent, as is sanctioning of a decision. When sanctions for a decision making system are weak, conflicted, or coercive they send signals of mistrust, which turns to resentment and oppositional relationships.
When sanctions for a decision are richly rewarding, especially when they are natural rewards, the outcome is satisfying. |
