Until it can survive independently of the mother, a foetus has no rights at all, never mind a right to life

ANY analysis of the origin of rights shows that there is no such thing as the unborn’s right to life which trumps the woman’s right to choose to bear the child, or not, contrary to the argument in Write Back (October 2), which would make the foetus, at all stages of its development, and the mother equivalent in rights to two, fully formed conjoined twins.

There is no such thing as a right for every fertilised egg to develop into a child; millions spontaneously abort and others are lost by miscarriage at much later stages of development.

There is no such thing as a natural right here, since nature itself is so profligate in this matter.

We may grant a legal right to life as something that inheres in properties shared by us and the entity protected by these rights.

Consciousness is the essential human characteristic, which is a product of being a massively multicellular body and a brain functioning at a high level.

Brain death is a criterion for allowing vital care to be legally removed from adults, as their right to life has thereby departed.

Until this high-level brain functioning has developed in a foetus, no such right to life exists. This occurs at about the time the foetus can survive independently of the mother (about 24 weeks). So, until this stage of development, the foetus has no rights at all.

Before this threshold, the woman is free to choose to carry her pregnancy to term, or not.

It should be her free choice between her and her conscience and should not be impinged upon by the state, or others who force her to bear an unwanted pregnancy to term.

READER

Coleraine, Co Londonderry