Even if a fetus is a human, do the woman's rights come first?

  • "Human" simply delineates species origin.

    Sperm and egg cells are also human. The question is one of PERSONHOOD, and that is not biological but philosophical. There is no consensus, but until a fetus is sentient, conscious, and able to feel pain arguments for personhood are spurious. Since abortions are already illegal by this point, there is no good argument at all.

    A woman is provably a person, unlike a fetus. There is no way to give a fetus personhood rights without removing hers, essentially turning a woman into an incubator against her will- an object.

  • Yes, Women's Rights Come First. She has to carry the fetus.

    Until you "pro-fetus" people can carry the fetus in question, you have no say in the matter. It should be against the law for pro-fetus people to get in the way of any decision a woman has to make about whether or not to have an abortion. Somehow you have lost your perspective. You should ask yourself one question when harassing doctors of abortion clinics, staff of abortion cinics, or the women having the abortion, "What makes this your business?" Are you all pretender superheroes trying to rid the world of what you feel is bad, if so you should spend the time you are using to get in others faces, and go to a psychiatrist. You are bothering people who are involved in a legal procedure. That makes you the anti hero. Until a fetus is viable, the woman who is carrying the fetus has all the rights. You are just interfering in something that is none of your business.

  • Ok, then should a woman be allowed to remove a fetus from her body?

    Assuming that the woman also has rights, it stands to reason that she should be allowed control of her body has well. Should she be allowed to remove the baby from her body? If she doesn't want the baby there it's technically an intruder and she should be allowed it. The baby may have a right to life but the woman is not obligated to help the baby with that.

  • Women's Rights Trumps Fetus

    In all cases. The fetus is occupying a space within another body and holds no actual rights to that space. If a women feels the need to abort, that is her right and nobody should be able to take that from her. Nobody has a right to control another persons body, plain and simple,

  • Fetuses are not "people"

    A fetus' brain is not developed until late into the pregnancy, at which point you should not get an abortion. But before that, it isn't sentient, and it lives of its mother, so it is basically part of the mother's body. A grown woman has feelings, can think and reason, can feel pain, and is certainly more of a "human" than an undeveloped blob. Until the baby is born, I would not consider it a person more than a part of the woman's body.

  • Yes. Yes it does.

    Let's look at the facts. A fetus cannot take care of itself. It is dependent upon the mother to do that. And putting the fetus first marginalizes the mother, making her nothing more than a baby factory.

    To say that a fetus is more important than a woman is to say that a woman is a second class citizen.

  • Right to life

    The right to life is the most basic right to humans. If there is no right to life, then there can be no other rights. If you agree that a fetus is human (which science and reason can easily prove) then you must agree that the rights of the fetus trump the "right" of the woman to an abortion.

  • If you acknowledge that the fetus is human, why should one human's rights come before another?

    People disagree on whether or not an unborn child is a human. But this question accepts the premise that an unborn child is a human. If it is, why should one human's rights come before another? Ideally, some day we'll find a way to save all fetuses without any woman who doesn't want to be pregnant having to be, but for now, we need to protect those humans who cannot live any other way.

  • How can you choose one human's rights over another's?

    If you think that the fetus is a human, then how can you choose one over the other? How can you choose one person's rights over another? It is sad that someone might have to be pregnant if they don't want to be, but a fetus cannot live any other way, and if you feel that it is a person, then what other choice can you possibly justify?

  • We need to consider the whole; Pro-Choice People Are Irresponsible With Their Arguments and the Effects they could have on society

    I would say yes if only the societal effects from pro-choice reasoning weren't so potentially dire. People come forth with arguments like "I'm pro-choice because it's better for people to die rather than have to live in foster care or be neglected or abused or to be disabled." This kind of reasoning cheapens the value of human life and risks sending us into the kind of worldview that enables eugenicism against people. If people never used such arguments I would be pro-choice. While I do think bodily autonomy is an important value and would otherwise say that banning abortion is similar to mandating organ donations because of the sheer enormity of the potential social consequences of the sorts of argumentation that legal abortion encourages just in order to defend it I say we should make abortion illegal. People these days will any argument if it just sounds good to defend their position without thinking about its implications because politics has turned into a game! For making such absurd and offensive arguments pro-choice people deserve to lose! If they change, if I see that I will be pro-choice once again. Until then I'm pro-life.

  • Murder at its cruelest form

    Abortion to me in any form is murder. I feel both women who have had abortions and the depiscalbe slime that commits abortions should be tried for murder. And with enought occurences sentenced to capital punishment. When the child is developed enough to be a fetus it is entitled to the rights it is guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  • Sex is a right.

    This is womans rights correct? Isnt there like a 90% chance that the woman chose to do something that had the very possibility of creating a life form? Her right (excludeing rape and such relations) was to have sex. The baby cant speak for itself, much less do anything else, and say they want to live. Every human has the right to life, and to disagree with that, is to say that you couldnt care less as to what happens to your own life.

  • It depends on the environment the child grows up in

    If the child is to grow up in an unstable environment, best to not allow the child to live at all as opposed to damning him/her to a live of misery. If the government was to provide a program that would ensure that every child would have a sufficient amount of parental support, financial support, and opportunity then the child's life trumps the mother's right. There is clearly no program in the United States- therefore, we must allow the mother to decide.

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