Colleen of Boston Brahmina explains how the alleged important question of when a fetus becomes human is not so important afterall:
If it has none until birth, abortion does not violate human rights because there are none to be violated. If it has them at the moment of conception, or at 6 months’ gestation, or when lung development suggests viability, or at any other point in utero, its mother is still its medical proxy and its rights do not extend to forcing her to use her body to maintain its life, so she may decide to abort without violating those rights.
In fact, the only potential violation of human rights is to force the pregnant woman to carry the fetus to term. She is the life-support system; she is the potential bone-marrow donor. Not even actual, born people have unconditional rights to these things. Why would a fetus?
Read the whole post. It’s quite simple, to the point and I couldn’t put it any better than her.
2 Responses
"People who advocate freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without the awful roar of the thunder and lightning.
Without struggle, there is no progress. This struggle might be a moral one. It might be a physical one. It might be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. People may not get all that they pay for in this world, but they certainly pay for all that they get." ~ Frederick Douglas
Human rights is the best cause to protect
Continuing the Discussion