QuestionQUESTION: Hello Danielle. I have a question regarding the morality of abortion. I hope I can start by assuming that in order for the pro-choice position to be reasonable, the human foetus must be discounted from being a person or at least from possessing any rights as such. Yet delineating between a human baby and a human foetus is difficult, if not impossible. Most would agree that killing a newborn baby is immoral, and that there is some sort of worth attached to it. Why is killing an unborn foetus (that could become a baby) any different? Where does one draw the line between a living object that has human rights and a living object that does not? and on what grounds does one justify that distinction?
Thank you.
ANSWER: Hi Kyle :)
Well no, it is not about discounting the fetus (which does not have the ability to feel pain or even conceive of anything until extremely late in the pregnancy), it's about counting the WOMAN. What the pro-choice side does is say that women are not second class to fetuses-they deserve the right to control their own bodies, and not become slaves to reproduction, which is exactly what the situation becomes when abortion is taken away. For the pro-choice side it's the actual life that matters the most (of the woman), not the potential one's.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Danielle, it seems to me that you are begging the question. In your answer you have assumed already that the foetus is somehow less human or less valuable than its mother. Why is she the sole possessor of "the actual life" and why should she not be equal in moral status? You said that pro-choice is about preventing the woman from becoming "second class to fetuses," but what prevents a pro-life advocate from claiming the reverse, that the foetus becomes second class to the woman. My first question asked on what grounds can the foetus be shown to be lacking in 'human rights' (or at least the right to life).
AnswerWhy would the actual human being, who has to sacrifice her body and possibly her health for almost a year be equal or less than a fetus? That's misogyny.
Damn right a fetus should be second class to an actual human being who it depends on for every part of its existence.
I'm just curious, why are women forced to donate their entire bodies to a fetus, yet death row inmates aren't even required to donate blood or organs? You might want to get a check on your attitude towards women, Kyle. Do you really think a woman is equal to a fetus? That's incredibly, incredibly offensive. My life and experiences are somehow less important than a group of cells. Thank you for that. Or do you want women to be punished for being sexual? Bodily integrity trumps right to life. A parasite should never, never, be considered anywhere near equal to women. And if you feel they are, are they also equal to that of men? Would you like to give up your current life for a year for something you don't want and which serves you no benefit? Women have physical health and emotional health to care about first, not whether a bunch of cells has human rights.
