Singers ‘one major objection’ refers to the ethical argument concerning abortion, through exploring the differentiation between a fetus and a newborn baby. The liberal argument expresses the view of that it is acceptable to kill a fetus up to a certain point but has adverse feeling towards killing a baby that is able to live outside the womb.
Singer (1979, p.122) argues that if a fetus does not have the same claim to life neither does a newborn baby, even one that of a week-year-old. He previously stated the life of a fetus has no greater value than the life of an animal, maintaining that an animal and a fetus has the same level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, and capacity to feel. As an adult person, we own this capacity to …show more content…
A woman should have the ultimate autonomy over her body and the future she wishes to have, whether that is having a baby or not. A woman should have the choice to decide as this can affect her mental and her physical state, as her health and safety can be compromised due to not having control over what she wishes to do with her body. But I do believe there is a certain point as to which you shouldn’t have an abortion, where it is late into the pregnancy and the fetus might feel pain during the procedure or have the ability to live outside of the …show more content…
This then does reinforcing Singer’s argument that the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person; therefore, justifying infanticide to a newborn isn’t autonomous. Although I do agree with the liberal argument, and it is clear to see the objection singer has based on his arguments that if the fetus doesn’t have a claim to life due to it not being a rational, self-conscious being unable to make decisions, a newborn is unable to have this claim. But growing up in a cultural society where killing an innocent human being is wrong, and newborn or an infant is living, still somewhat dependent on survival, but does not require a woman body, whereas this infant surviving out of the womb has more of a possibility of having a future, I believe infanticide is
Singer (1979, p.122) argues that if a fetus does not have the same claim to life neither does a newborn baby, even one that of a week-year-old. He previously stated the life of a fetus has no greater value than the life of an animal, maintaining that an animal and a fetus has the same level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, and capacity to feel. As an adult person, we own this capacity to …show more content…
A woman should have the ultimate autonomy over her body and the future she wishes to have, whether that is having a baby or not. A woman should have the choice to decide as this can affect her mental and her physical state, as her health and safety can be compromised due to not having control over what she wishes to do with her body. But I do believe there is a certain point as to which you shouldn’t have an abortion, where it is late into the pregnancy and the fetus might feel pain during the procedure or have the ability to live outside of the …show more content…
This then does reinforcing Singer’s argument that the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person; therefore, justifying infanticide to a newborn isn’t autonomous. Although I do agree with the liberal argument, and it is clear to see the objection singer has based on his arguments that if the fetus doesn’t have a claim to life due to it not being a rational, self-conscious being unable to make decisions, a newborn is unable to have this claim. But growing up in a cultural society where killing an innocent human being is wrong, and newborn or an infant is living, still somewhat dependent on survival, but does not require a woman body, whereas this infant surviving out of the womb has more of a possibility of having a future, I believe infanticide is