‘The mother’s right to life should always overrule the rights of her unborn child’ (15 marks)
There is a huge debate of who’s right should overrule the other, between the mother and the baby. Some people believe that the mother will have the greater right to life, whereas others argue that the unborn child does. By saying that a person has ‘rights’ it means that people are free to make their own choices and are entitled to be somewhere or do as they want.
Firstly, some people believe that the mother has the greatest right to life and should always overrule the rights of the unborn child. A pregnancy can have a massive impact on the mother. It has physiological and emotional changes on the mother, it also puts the mother’s body under great pressure and there are significant health risks attached. For this reason, people will argue that the mother’s health is superior to the foetuses. It will be the mother who has to support the child through the pregnancy which will physically and mentally affect her health and her freedom and therefore she will be the main person affected and should have the choice on whether she should or should have the child. This view is pro-choice which will argue for the mother’s right to life over the unborn child’s. The reasoning behind why people believe that the mother’s rights overrule the rights of the unborn child’s is because the unborn child has not yet adopted personhood and therefore does not have the same rights as the mother who has full personhood. Personhood is the status of being a human being. However the problem is when personhood begins which is the dispute to when the unborn child becomes a human being. Whereas others argue that the foetus is a growing human being and is a potential person. The court says that a foetus is not a person but ‘potential life’ and therefore the mother’s life should overrule the unborn foetuses. For example, in an ectopic pregnancy. The fallopian tube is removed and the embryo dies, this...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document