Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
The freedom of the mother supersedes that of the embryo. I would have to violate her rights in order to protect the embryo.
As for your future value argument, I don't buy it. You could argue the world would have been better of if Hitler was aborted.
|
The bolded piece is the fundamental difference in our arguments, and is why we have to just allow ourselves to disagree. I have the exact opposite view, that the rights of the embryo to live supercedes the rights of the mother to choose. To me it makes sense, because the mother just has to sacrifice her body for 9 months, and then the emotional trauma of giving the baby up for adoption, but then she lives her life and moves on. But the embryo is forced to sacrifice it's entire existence if aborted. When weighing the sacrifices, I think the woman should be forced to suck it up. But if you think the mother's right supercedes the embryo's, then there's no reconciling our arguments.
As for the future value thing, you're grasping at straws. What are the chances that any child grows up to be the next Hitler? Or let's expand that, what are the chances that any child grows up to be a detracting member of society in any way (a criminal, a bum, etc.)? There are a lot more healthy, happy, and normal people in society than there are bums. So if you want to talk straight up odds, chances are the child is going to grow up to be a good person with a solid life.
Besides, Hitler had a chance to become a good man, but he chose to be the piece of shitake mushroom. That's his fault, but at least he had a chance to choose how to live his life.