Blog Post #6

I feel like what Hursthouse has stated surrounding women’s rights is a bit too ‘jump to conclusions’. He is too quick to write off a woman’s right to abort her fetus. I think that it should be pointed out that the fetus is attached to the woman’s body, developed within the body of a person – essentially a malignant tumor that sucks out nutrients from the body. Comparatively like a cancer tumor (as an example mentioned from a previous example in the article unrelated to abortion). Cancer is the growth of abnormal cells in the body. Much like the development of a baby could be considered as a growth of abnormal cells; being for the fact that you do not cultivate a child every day – such as in a process of normative biological systems. If we thus accept this idea as true, that the development of a baby is considered as a growth of abnormal cells, we can then be lead to the point that women should be morally permissible to rid themselves of malignant growths of abnormal cells and that it is the right of a woman to decide to rid herself of malignancy within the body. I feel that this argument then therefore calls into question the establishment of a person for I am arguing that a fetus growing within a mother is not considered a person. When a child is detached from their mother, the baby’s umbilical cord is cut, the entity of a person therefore takes over.