At some point, near viablity, so conceded. But a womans egg, fertilised in the lab, is obviously not a being with rights. Therefore, it is a moral dilemma as to exactly when a developing fetus has rights that supersedes its mothers.
The problem seems to be determining at what point "life" begins. I view the nine or so months spent in gestation as a continuum, so it's difficult to pinpoint that exact time. With that in mind, isn't the most moral course of action one that advocates - to a certainty - no violation of the child's rights? And isn't the only certain assumption one that says life begins at conception?
At some point, near viablity, so conceded. But a womans egg, fertilised in the lab, is obviously not a being with rights. Therefore, it is a moral dilemma as to exactly when a developing fetus has rights that supersedes its mothers.
The problem seems to be determining at what point "life" begins. I view the nine or so months spent in gestation as a continuum, so it's difficult to pinpoint that exact time. With that in mind, isn't the most moral course of action one that advocates - to a certainty - no violation of the child's rights? And isn't the only certain assumption one that says life begins at conception?
Certainly, a unique life begins at conception. -- But why would human rights immediately begin that supersede those of its mother? -- As I said at #33:
An egg is not a being, nor is a sperm. -- Combining them in a lab is not an act of creation. Months of gestation are necessary before a viable human being, with individual rights exists.
- So our existing law reasons.
I've seen no better solution to this moral dilemma over mother/baby rights. -- Nor have I seen one from any one else .