This is the argument that, although the baby in the womb is human, they do not deserve the same rights as the mother because unborn babies have not become persons yet.
In this worldview, a person is not a person because they are human; you become a person through experience and thought.
Being human is not enough to be worthy of protection.
Therefore, since unborn babies are not persons, the woman has more rights than the unborn baby and she does not have to offer the child protection.
Babies in this scenario are often affectionately referred to as “parasites” because they are using the mother’s body without her permission.
We must recognize that the right to live doesn’t increase with age, size, location, or degree of dependence
The moment we begin reasoning this way, consistency demands that anyone, from infants to the elderly, if dependent upon others for their survival, can be killed because they are inconvenient.
This faulty thinking often leads to pregnancy being portrayed as a condition to which the mother has not consented.
Of course, pregnancy is a natural consequence of sexual relations between a man and a woman.
These are overwhelmingly consensual acts
No one is forcing women to get pregnant.
Therefore, the analogy is inaccurate from the beginning.
The mother and her child are not enemies. What is at stake in this scenario is the lifestyle of the mother over against the baby’s actual life.
The argument is based on the idea that if the woman doesn’t want the baby that came about as a result of her actions, she can conveniently dispose of the inconvenience if it gives her relief.
We live in a culture that wants freedom without responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment