Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Interesting Point On Abortion Debate

Ok, in reading LJ's group conservatism, I found an interesting side to the age-old abortion issue:
Both the mother and fetus have rights, including the right to choose...I'm assuming that you believe that since the child cannot advocate a position, that the choice is automatically "life" and that supersedes the mother's choice...

Now, with that precedent set, shouldn't it follow that parental consent essentially should be meaningless?
It is interesting for me because I have never considered that life magically begins at conception. But, even in assuming that a zygote is a life worth protecting, the pro-life and pro-choice positions reach a paradox. Whose life is more important? The mother's or child's?

If it is the mother, then she has every right to do with her body as she wishes. If it is the child, then we assume its choice is to live. So, that in taking up the "rights of a fetus" the role and importance of the mother is marginalized. Not to mention, the decision of the fetus is assumed, not verified.

At what point, does a mother have parental consent over her child? After birth? Does this mean that before a birth, the child is emancipated, and becomes subservient after birth? This produces some serious legal and moral quandaries.


Post a Comment

<< Home