The rights of a fetus
I disagree with Steven Hoffmann’s belief that fetuses’ “lives” are more important than women’s lives. Hoffmann neglects the fact that fetuses are only potential humans. Any eighth grade biology textbook will tell you that, even with today’s medical advances, only about 85 percent of pregnancies result in live births. A fetus only has an 85 percent chance of becoming a human baby. Are living humans less important than potential humans? Would you sacrifice a living human for a potential human? Would you even sacrifice one human for one hundred potential humans? (Why I think that Hoffmann believes that this “new life” is more important than a female life would be another tangent entirely…)
But that’s not the main point. The point is that humans only have rights in our society if they are capable of fulfilling certain duties. If someone/something can’t fulfill duties to society, we should consider its welfare but aren’t obligated to grant it any rights. Consider a dog. Dogs can’t really contribute to our society. They can’t pay taxes, go to jury duty, or vote. They can’t break the law and go to jail. Even if someone argues that there are working dogs or dogs that contribute to society by “making people happy,” dogs can’t understand basic principles of morality. Dogs can’t take responsibility for their actions.
We’ll consider their welfare and try to ensure that they aren’t abused, but because laws don’t really apply to them, neither do rights. A more relevant, less ridiculous example: a person in a coma. A person in a coma can’t do anything. Because of their state, if they aren’t physically/mentally capable of participating in or giving to our society, why should they receive any of the benefits of living in our society? Yes, we should consider their welfare, but because they literally have no voice, they also legitimately have no rights.
When it comes down to it, I don’t believe that anything has the right to live unless it can sustain its own life – unless its heart can beat and its lungs can breathe on their own. I don’t believe that you can “kill” something that’s not alive.
I don’t believe that you can kill something that might only become alive at a later point in time. Once a fetus is viable, and can exist without assistance outside the womb, when it’s no longer only a potential baby, that’s when it has the right to live…because it can live.
If we examine the way our society functions, it’s easy to see that we operate on the “we only get if we give, we only keep if we have” system. As children get older and can understand and do more, more is expected of them and more is given to them. Only when children hit their teens can they start being accountable to the law – and even then there’s a distinction between juvenile and adult court. The presumption is that juveniles deserve different treatment because they have an incomplete grasp of right and wrong.
Rights come with responsibility in our society, whether we like it or not. If you disagree, then, when you grant infants the right to vote and let’s also give a kid screaming in TGI Friday’s a citation for disturbing the peace. Better yet, let’s arrest a two-year-old for sabotage and vandalism for running off and pooing in the corner of TOYS-R-US. Let’s give the kid a month of community service and a $500 fine.
Or let’s assume that a fetus, something not yet even alive, something that only has an 85 percent chance of becoming alive, has the right to live. Even better, let’s argue that this potential human (that is not yet capable of living on its own and that can neither possess an understanding of morality nor accept any responsibility for its actions) is more important than a woman (who is both living and capable).
You have to give in order to get. You have to possess in order to keep.
Melissa is a senior in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at mjmiller@artsci.wustl.edu.
Related Posts
Print This Post