The nonperson is unborn: The question of it’s/his/her rights

The nonperson is unborn: The question of it’s/his/her rights: “Writers on the prochoice side generally accept the premise that pregnant human mothers carry developing human life. The departure usually occurs on philosophical arguments of what constitutes ‘personhood.’ Some prochoice advocates argue that the unborn lack essential qualities of being a person, and hence, do not obligate us morally. Whatever …”

(Via Science, Politics and Ethics.)

——-

the only person that has rights in regards to their life in the situation of a woman with unborn child is the woman. the unborn have no rights to anything. the state has a responsibility first to the mother, and then if that is met, to the child, but the responsibility to the child can never outweigh the mother on any consideration. the child is as such not a person, it has no rights, and any rights it will have for some time will be through its parents, even after it is born. the woman has several rights including a right to her body, a right to privacy, and a right to self-determination, no consideration of the unborn can overrule those rights.

if you disagree, you will have to find some evidence in some tradition to prove otherwise, but i think that if you honestly pursue the question, you will have to come to the above conclusion.

One comment on “The nonperson is unborn: The question of it’s/his/her rights

  1. Clancy says:

    I have nothing to say to that except: Right on!

Comments are closed.