Fetus viability and rights
In the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court proclaimed the unborn are not legally defined as people. However, the court also allows states to restrict access to abortions where fetuses are viable, this means potentially capable to survive outside the womb on their own. Pro-choice supporters argument that you cannot have two entities with equal rights in one body. As a woman and a pro-choice supporter I believe giving rights to an embryo cancels out the mother's right to life. Pro-life supporters argument that a fertilized egg if left to grown becomes a full develop baby. The court did not state that viability is or is not when a fetus becomes a person; but that 24 weeks is the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person. I'm pro-choice and I support legal abortions. I believe a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. Genetics inform us that every cell that contains DNA has potential to develop into a complete person, so does a dead dandruff flake given the proper environment. So we can't use “living” as a characteristic of a person. A fetus is alive because cells have multiply, divide and grow. It is human because it has human DNA and left to grow it can become a full human person. However, it is not a person yet because it does not possess consciousness, and this does not occur until months sometimes even years after a baby is born. Therefore having a set of human DNA does not give the fetus human rights. Pro-life supporters argue that when you stimulate a fetus in a uterus using a needle they react. But this is only reflex and not a conscious reaction. A fetus brain hasn't been develop completely therefore it cannot function enough to be conscious. A fetus is born because the mother chooses to put aside her own rights and her own security in order to allow the future person to gestate inside her own...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document