Fundamentally, the right to life is the right to not be harmed. To be put even more simply, it could be described as the right not to be killed. As with most rights, this applies only to humans. Where a difference in interpretation arises is at the definition of human. The definition comes under scrutiny in many circumstances such as capital punishment, terminal illness, and abortion.
The definition of humanity is most debated when discussed in regards to abortion. For many, life begins at the point of conception, granting an unborn fetus the status of a human. Others do not grant humanity to anything less than a late-stage fetus or birthed infant. For the purpose of a standard abortion, the mother is allowed to determine her own morality. However, the bill mentioned in the assigned article would give hospitals the right to insert their own set of morals, possibly denying abortive procedures to emergency patients. In such an instance, a hospital would be placing the life of a child at a higher value than that of the mother. The problem is that we, as a society, are obliged to leave decisions such as this up to the discretion of the mother. Any third party interjecting its views into the situation appear to be using the mother for their own means. By heroically denying an abortion to a woman, hospital staff and politicians are able to feel good about themselves for having fulfilled their moral values. Unfortunately, their personal satisfaction would be gained at the cost of the mother's hopes, dreams, and ideals. So far as I am concerned, the value of a child's life is left to the mother. If she decides that her child's value supercedes hers, so be it. Until then, hospitals and government shouldn't treat pregnant mothers as a means for their own morality, but rather as a autonomous human with her own beliefs.
No comments:
Post a Comment