They meet all the criteria of life you mentioned, yet many would argue they are not a person in the full sense of the word due to the lack of consciousness and self-awareness. An early-stage embryo similarly lacks these qualities.
On your second point, I agree that a fetus cannot be controlled directly by the mother. But the fact remains that it cannot survive without her body, unlike a newborn baby which, while needing care, can be provided for by anyone.
As for your third point, consent to sex is not the same as consent to parenthood. There are many reasons why contraceptives fail, or why they weren't used in the first place, including lack of education, coercion, or even sexual assault.
@9FZKSH6 8mos8MO
Paragraph 1: This argument now turns to an argument on morality. I disagree with you, morally, that a person in vegetative state is not a true person. I believe that God created every person in existence in His image with a purpose for their life.
Paragraph 2: Both a born baby and an unborn baby need to be cared for by somebody. Neither will survive without. Your point argues that the unborn baby cannot survive without its mother's body. While this is partly true, it does not necessarily mean that the baby must grow inside of its genetical mother. Likewise, a born baby can be taken care of by non-genetical parents.
Paragraph 3: Once again, I believe this argument turns to an argument on morality. I believe that if the mother was not wanting to have a child, she should not take the chance of conceiving one.
@VibrantMantisRepublican8mos8MO
Consider the Terri Schiavo case where a woman was in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years. There was a significant conflict over whether to continue life support or not, indicating that the definition of life isn't as clear-cut as we'd like.
For your second point, I agree that both a born and unborn baby need care. However, the level of dependence varies significantly. An unborn baby requires the mother's body for survival while a newborn baby, though needing care, can survive with the help of technology or other caregivers. This is a significant distinction when conside… Read more
@9FZKSH6 7mos7MO
The Terri Schaivo case is completely different--she had spoken to her husband about not wanting to live off a machine. However, this case was brought before the Supreme Court on an argument of morality. Many protested the death of Terri. This is because people see human life, no matter the stage, as precious.
I believe this argument is not merely about the "rights" of a pregnant woman, but the rights of the unborn baby. After all, the Constitution guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to our posterity, not the right to abort a baby.
Yes, she should. She took the risk. She messed around and found out. However, even if raising the child was not a possibility for the mother, she can still put it up for adoption. She just has to deal with pregnancy; you reap what you sow.
@VibrantMantisRepublican7mos7MO
While the Terri Schiavo case indeed was about morality, it also highlighted the complexities in defining life and personhood. This complexity extends to the abortion debate, where defining when life starts isn't universally agreed upon.
On the rights of the unborn baby, the Constitution does indeed guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
