The pro-choice argument is that the fetus is not yet a human being and its rights should not override that of the mother's.
If being human is defined through having a certain level of self awareness and acknowledgment of your person, then the fetus is not yet a human being so aborting it would be as immoral as destroying a malignant tumor (Shrage 127).
Even if a fetus is defined as a human being because it has a potential life, if the fetus does not yet aspire to live.
It could be argued that as the child could not possibly survive independently of the mother, at least before approximately four months into the pregnancy, it is not yet an independent human being, but an attachment of the mother, therefore she should be allowed to terminate it, if this is what she wants to do to herself, as opposed to when the child is physically independent of the mother, when any potentially life ending action against it would be inflicted upon the child directly, not its mother (Kellough 35).
Based on the view that the fetus is already a small baby, some extreme anti-abortionists would maintain that abortion is impermissible even to save the mothers life.
The majority of abortions, however, are not performed in the interests of saving the mothers life, but to deter inconvenience and difficulty on either her part, or the child's.
It may be acceptable to some to sacrifice the fetus in order save the mother, but not to abort the fetus in order to please the mother.
If a fetus is aborted because the mother does not view it as the potential child she had hoped for, this is effectively grading human life.
Even though the fetus is partly a product of the mother, does this give her the right to decide whether it should live, because in truth the fetus is a separate life form from the mother- whereas a different type of cell cluster (like skin cells) are part of her (Shrage 56).
Many argue that the rights of the mother exceed the rights of the fetus, and that while the fetus is a living organism it does not constitute for a human being.
If being human is defined through having a certain level of self awareness and acknowledgment of your person, then the fetus is not yet a human being so aborting it would be as immoral as destroying a malignant tumor (Shrage 127).
Even if a fetus is defined as a human being because it has a potential life, if the fetus does not yet aspire to live.
It could be argued that as the child could not possibly survive independently of the mother, at least before approximately four months into the pregnancy, it is not yet an independent human being, but an attachment of the mother, therefore she should be allowed to terminate it, if this is what she wants to do to herself, as opposed to when the child is physically independent of the mother, when any potentially life ending action against it would be inflicted upon the child directly, not its mother (Kellough 35).
Based on the view that the fetus is already a small baby, some extreme anti-abortionists would maintain that abortion is impermissible even to save the mothers life.
The majority of abortions, however, are not performed in the interests of saving the mothers life, but to deter inconvenience and difficulty on either her part, or the child's.
It may be acceptable to some to sacrifice the fetus in order save the mother, but not to abort the fetus in order to please the mother.
If a fetus is aborted because the mother does not view it as the potential child she had hoped for, this is effectively grading human life.
Even though the fetus is partly a product of the mother, does this give her the right to decide whether it should live, because in truth the fetus is a separate life form from the mother- whereas a different type of cell cluster (like skin cells) are part of her (Shrage 56).
Many argue that the rights of the mother exceed the rights of the fetus, and that while the fetus is a living organism it does not constitute for a human being.
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق