Click For Photo: https://cdn.christianpost.com/files/original/thumbnail/23/20/232038.jpg
Abortion debate: Whose rights take precedence?
Facebook Twitter Email Menu Comment
Abortion - Debate - Boils - Question - Rights
Previously, we discussed that the abortion debate boils down to a question of, “Who gets rights?” The Pro-Life side asserts the fundamental right to life for all; the Pro-Abortion side claims that a woman (person’s) right to bodily autonomy is greater that a fetus’s (“non-person’s”) right to life.) We noted that the issue of personhood must first be decided and demonstrated that the pre-born human is just as deserving of personhood as humans who have already been born.
This now leads us to our second question, whose rights take precedence?
Unborn - Persons - Rights - Nature - Existence
If we acknowledge that both the unborn and born are persons, and I have argued that we should, then we must acknowledge that both of them have intrinsic human rights by nature of their existence. What are these human rights?
Many throughout the course of history have acknowledged and discussed what these human rights are and should be. While the idea that there is a right and wrong way for humans to act and treat other humans goes back as far as ancient times many of these are based in a person’s civic status rather than by nature their personhood and humanity. The Code of Hammurabi (c. 1792 B.C.) is filled with different laws depending on the status of the individuals involved and included many cruel and inhuman punishments. Punishments were also given by class. Harsher punishments were given for crimes against a freeman than for crimes committed against slaves. If a freeman struck another freeman, he had only to pay a fine. Whereas if a slave struck a freeman, his ear was to be cut off. If a freeman struck a man of higher class than him, he was to receive a public lashing. As we saw previously, only citizens in ancient...
Wake Up To Breaking News!