“Even if the unborn are human beings, they have fewer rights than the woman. No one should be expected to donate her body as a life-support system for someone else.”

9 a) Once we grant that the unborn are human beings, it should settle the question of their right to live.

” But how can one’s humanity be irrelevant to the question of whether someone has the right to kill him? Wasn’t the black person’s humanity relevant to the issue of slavery, or the Jew’s humanity relevant to the ethics of the Holocaust? Not only is the unborn’s humanity relevant, It is the single principle most relevant issue on the whole abortion  debate.”

Historical events, which helped to shape our society in terms of defending human rights and the dignity of human life, is being contradicted when a statements as such, that a child has less rights than its mother when in her womb. If the child within the womb is acknowledged to be a human life, like many scientists have come to conclude, how is their life less important than their mothers. Simply because it cannot defend itself? Human life and its dignity, isn’t it equal for every human being regardless of their shape, size, religion, colour, ethnicity. How is this human life any different?

9 b) The right to live doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults.

Francis Beckwith states:

“They argue, however, that although the unborn entity is human, insofar as belonging to the species homo sapiens, it is not a person and hence not fully human… Other philosophers take the gradualist position and argue that the unborn gradually gains more rights as it develops. Hence, a zygote has fewer rights than a six month-old fetus, but this fetus has fewer rights than and adult woman.”

If this is so then the woman that is arguing about her rights as a woman, at some point had no rights at all, considering that she too was in her mothers womb at some point in her development. Thus in our development stages an adolescence has more rights than a young child, and an infant than a toddler. With this arguments we can morally justify or debate the morality to the killing of a toddler instead of an infant, and an infant than an adolescent, and so forth. The question here is, aren’t all this simply different developmental stages, yet they do not change the fact that these all continue to be in their existence and essence human beings?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s