Even if a fetus is a person, we can still abort it
Yes, a fetus has human DNA. This makes it human.
However, it’s not a person. What makes you an individual? What gives you your personality? What reminds you of experiences you’ve undertaken to become who you are? Your brain or, philosophically speaking, your mind.
If you were born with only the brain stem, so your body pumped blood and breathed, you would not be you. You would be an organic robot; a series of systems that are operating, but that has no consciousness, no awareness of the world around it, no sentience.
A fetus doesn’t become a person until birth, which is when it attains sentience, awareness, and bodily autonomy.
An unborn child is already sentient and aware prior to his or her birth. Watch this video for proof. And given your argument on sentience, anyone currently in a coma should simply be killed because they are just ‘organic robots’.
Even if your premise that an unborn child is not a person was correct - and it’s not, you are still wrong. As stated before - we don’t possess person rights, we are endowed with human rights.
Being sentient and aware does not mean ones right to autonomy should be violated. I will lay out a multiple step argument in favor of allowing uterus-bearers to perform abortion whenever they want to.
Firstly, consider an example of a chain smoker. This smoker is aware that smoking often can/will result in lung cancer. However, after getting lung cancer, the smoker is morally allowed to get chemotherapy to rid themselves of said cancer. Thus example shows that knowing a given event is a likely result of your actions does not mean you are morally required to endure that event. (In addition, it should be noting that cancer cells are human and do have a chance of becoming a live human being and thus killing them could be considered killing a potential human being. but I will not be making this claim as a primary argument. )
Secondly, I would suggest reading the entirety of the paper “A defense of abortion” by Judith Thomson which outlines a strong argument in favor of pro-choice. I will quote from the wikipedia page on this article.
In “A Defense of Abortion”, Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person’s body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. “[I]f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due.”
For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus’s right to life but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman’s body—to which it has no right. Thus, it is not that by terminating her pregnancy a woman violates her moral obligations, but rather that a woman who carries the fetus to term is a ‘Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations.
Do note that Thomson gives many more examples in her paper which I highly suggest reading. I will quote from one more example: her “People-seeds” argument.
To illustrate an example of pregnancy due to voluntary intercourse, Thomson presents the ‘people-seeds’ situation:
Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don’t want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective; and a seed drifts in and takes root.
Here, the people-seeds flying through the window represent conception, despite the mesh screen, which functions as contraception. The woman does not want a people-seed to root itself in her house, and so she even takes the measure to protect herself with the best mesh screens. However, in the event that one finds its way in, unwelcome as it may be, does the simple fact that the woman knowingly risked such an occurrence when opening her window deny her the ability to rid her house of the intruder? Thomson notes that some may argue the affirmative to this question, claiming that “…after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors”. But by this logic, she says, any woman could avoid pregnancy due to rape by simply having a hysterectomy – an extreme procedure simply to safeguard against such a possibility.
Again, these wikipedia summaries are by no means complete and I do strongly recommend reading the original paper.
Here is a link to said paper
(Source: protego-et-servio, via rightwinged)