What is the right balance of the fetuses “rights” and the mother’s rights of bodily integrity? Many would say the mother has sole authority to the decisions concerning her unborn fetus. Controversial issues arise once the fetus may be in potential danger. Finding the accommodating balance is both difficult and challenging.
Does the mother or the state have authority to make decisions concerning the fetus? This question is very difficult and needs evaluation and analyzing. Many individuals lean one way or the other. But which is morally correct? In the case of Tabita Bricci, her religion compromises the welfare of her baby. Bricci’s beliefs states that pregnancy should not be terminated until full term. Robertson and Schulman states, “Ethical …show more content…
This question always comes about one way or another. Does the mother have more rights than that of a fetus? Analogies in Munson’s materials help us evaluate these types of situations and make informed, educated, morally right decisions. Robertson and Schulman state, “This balance will vary with the burdens of altering the mother’s conduct and the risk of prenatally caused harm to offspring. Depending on the balance of risk, benefits, and burdens, prenatal conduct may be discretionary, advisable, prudent, or even obligatory...” (Robertson and Schulman, p. 752). The rights of the mother should not completely be diminished because of the child’s welfare. Yet, the fetus has the right to be born healthy. We have to respect the mother’s wishes, but also the fetus’s wishes to remain healthy. Also, Minkoff and Paltrow have opinions about pregnancy and prenatal harm. The mother that is carrying the child still has rights to autonomy and control over herself. Yet, the fetus also has the right to life and right to life without harm. Minkoff and Paltrow states, “In so doing, they suggest a need to balance rights when those rights appear to conflict with each other, a potentially to subordinate the rights of the women to those of the fetus” (Minkoff and Paltrow, p. 757). Minkoff and Paltrow suggest that unborn children have rights and pregnant women have value. Altogether, there is a constant battle in finding the right “balance” of …show more content…
First we must decide if the fetus is indeed a person or not. Munson states, “The claim of the fetus as a person must be given weight and respect in deliberating about any action that would terminate its life” (Munson, p. 456). If we rule that a fetus is a person, then abortion would be a case of unjust killing (Munson, p.456). So, if a fetus is a person it, like all human beings, has the right to life and one without harm. This relates back to cases like that of Tabita Bricci. Her unborn child has wishes to be born healthy, yet Bricci’s religion alters the safety of the child. Munson states, “[I]t could be argued that, even though the fetus is not a person, it is a potential person, and thus is a significant and morally relevant property, /…/, because the fetus can become a person, abortion does present a moral problem” (Munson, p. 456). Therefore, determining the status of the fetus as a person relates to how it is view and acted
Does the mother or the state have authority to make decisions concerning the fetus? This question is very difficult and needs evaluation and analyzing. Many individuals lean one way or the other. But which is morally correct? In the case of Tabita Bricci, her religion compromises the welfare of her baby. Bricci’s beliefs states that pregnancy should not be terminated until full term. Robertson and Schulman states, “Ethical …show more content…
This question always comes about one way or another. Does the mother have more rights than that of a fetus? Analogies in Munson’s materials help us evaluate these types of situations and make informed, educated, morally right decisions. Robertson and Schulman state, “This balance will vary with the burdens of altering the mother’s conduct and the risk of prenatally caused harm to offspring. Depending on the balance of risk, benefits, and burdens, prenatal conduct may be discretionary, advisable, prudent, or even obligatory...” (Robertson and Schulman, p. 752). The rights of the mother should not completely be diminished because of the child’s welfare. Yet, the fetus has the right to be born healthy. We have to respect the mother’s wishes, but also the fetus’s wishes to remain healthy. Also, Minkoff and Paltrow have opinions about pregnancy and prenatal harm. The mother that is carrying the child still has rights to autonomy and control over herself. Yet, the fetus also has the right to life and right to life without harm. Minkoff and Paltrow states, “In so doing, they suggest a need to balance rights when those rights appear to conflict with each other, a potentially to subordinate the rights of the women to those of the fetus” (Minkoff and Paltrow, p. 757). Minkoff and Paltrow suggest that unborn children have rights and pregnant women have value. Altogether, there is a constant battle in finding the right “balance” of …show more content…
First we must decide if the fetus is indeed a person or not. Munson states, “The claim of the fetus as a person must be given weight and respect in deliberating about any action that would terminate its life” (Munson, p. 456). If we rule that a fetus is a person, then abortion would be a case of unjust killing (Munson, p.456). So, if a fetus is a person it, like all human beings, has the right to life and one without harm. This relates back to cases like that of Tabita Bricci. Her unborn child has wishes to be born healthy, yet Bricci’s religion alters the safety of the child. Munson states, “[I]t could be argued that, even though the fetus is not a person, it is a potential person, and thus is a significant and morally relevant property, /…/, because the fetus can become a person, abortion does present a moral problem” (Munson, p. 456). Therefore, determining the status of the fetus as a person relates to how it is view and acted