Amazon.com Widgets

Abortion: Is it wrong to assign rights to the fetus?

  • Yes! Don't give rocks rights!

    A fetus is nothing but a parasite. It leeches on to the mothers nutrients and without the mother the fetus would be terminated. If some idiot decided to give rocks rights then they need some serious medical help. Imagine if a rock had rights.. They'd try to give nothing more rights than a grown woman. That's ridiculous. The mother is a person and the fetus and is a clump of cells that don't matter. There's nothing important about it and it doesn't have the right to live. The mother had that say. And if she's not ready to be a mother then abortions got her back. Women don't need to be in danger to get an abortion. I could purposely get pregnant right now and get an abortion just because u pro-lifers p*ss me off! Stop pretending like you care about a rock because unless ur willing to adopt everyone of em and pay for the pregnancy then u truly don't care. But there's nothing to care about because its a nothing that doesn't have a say. It's a parasite that can't see, hear, or think/do anything by itself. So again.. A fetus isn't a person, it is a useless clump of cells. It's not a "precious innocent baby". Stop thinking emotionally and start thinking realistically. IT'S A ROCK!!! It doesn't have rights/say.

  • Yes, : it is wrong to assign rights to the fetus.

    In my opinion the unborn fetus should not be assigned rights. Because the development process is incomplete. The rights are the woman's and as such cannot be assigned to the fetus as the fetus is part of the person. In addition the dual entity would need to cease at birth and then the newborn could be assigned rights.

  • This isn't even valid.

    No, you can't assign rights to a fetus because a fetus isn't a living person.

    Even if you could, even if you gave a fetus every single right everyone else has, it wouldn't change a single thing about abortion, because we have the right to protect our bodies from unwanted attacks. No one has a right to use or even touch any of our body parts without our continuous consent. Technically, if there was a separate person who insisted on living in your uterus when you didn't want them to, you could kick them out.

    So this whole, "a fetus is a person with a right to life!" thing isn't even valid.

  • Assign rights to what?

    I believe it is wrong because a fetus is nothing. It is a collection of cells inside a host that can not survive on its own and cannot think for itself. As far as I am concerned until the baby is born is nothing than a parasite living on the host and should not have rights.

  • No: rights are needed

    Rights, Rights, Rights. They are definitely, undoubtedly, needed for the fetus. This a confirmed scientifically proven fact. Rights are needed for the fetus because it is a person once the sperm and egg meet. Again, a scientifically proven fact and the obvious answer. There shouldn't even be a debate on this honestly.

  • Some limited rights is OK

    It's the woman's body. So she should have the right to decide whether a fetus can dwell there or not. But if anybody else kills the fetus then they should be liable for murder. The fetus should be considered a person just with a right to life that doesn't override a woman's right to her own body. This is similar to how someone couldn't be arrested for kicking a person out of their house in the middle of a deadly storm. It's their house and it's the woman's body. Find a way to take the fetus out without killing it and then as long as that way is just as safe and just as uninvasive the woman should have to use that method of removing the fetus.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.