http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6161396.stm
This article is about an abortion in Nicaragua. It states that the pre-dominantly Catholic Nicaragua has voted to ban all abortions, even when the birth puts the life of the mother in danger.
This article surprised me that a country in the world today would ban abortion. While this is a victory for the rights of the unborn, it could also be looked at as a loss for the rights of mothers/woman in general. It is an interesting question as to what right would take first place in the debate. Do the unborn have rights? The fetus will develop into a person (most likely) and if it doesn't by aborting it we are denying its rights to have existed or its chance to have existed... but on the other hands... does a fetus constitute a person and if not should it be protected?
Tough questions....
tag: target="_blank">last301
posted by Ross Turner @ 3:34 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Hi Ross,
A fetus does not constitute a person because it cannot live when seperated from the mother's body. Until a fetus can survive without the direct link of nutrients flowing, it is not yet a person. The difference between a fetus and a baby is that the baby can live with the help of anyone (though a baby without the love of someone motherlike may not live a very high quality life), while a fetus is directly connected to the mother, and is therefore a part of her until birth.
This is just one reasons that banning abortion in Nicaragua is a step backwards for women's rights. I'll leave it for others to talk about the prevelence of unsafe abortions that kill or maim women, the fact that birth control is often not availible, or its negotiation of use is not possible (in al societies, though machismo plays a factor in this), and you should get the picture why the rights of a fetus that is dependent on a woman's body should not have more rights than the woman herself.
Erika
Erika,
While I agree with what you say in principal... (perhaps not with your tone) a question does arise...
A born child at the age of 4 months cannot survive on its own, it does require the attention of someone to feed it, clean, etc. etc.. so does that make the 4 month child have less rights than those looking after it? Therefore, the use of the thought that the Fetus is dependent really can't be valid unless you believe that the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the born infant child as well.
Or perhaps another comparison is in order... if a grown woman is dependent upon her job for money to pay for her food, do the rights of the employer outweigh the rights of the woman? She is dependent upon the "body" of the job for her life? Maybe a bit of a stretch.. maybe not..
I don’t think that the dependency argument carries much weight.
I look forward to hearing your polite response,
Ross
Post a Comment
<< Home