The argument of abortion has been raging since the Supreme Court case, Roe vs. Wade, in 1973. This court case has divided the country into two factions: pro-choice and pro-life. Pro-life advocates argue that abortions are murder and extreme levels of child abuse. While pro-choice advocates believe abortions are a justifiable means to end pregnancies. The pro-choice argument is that the fetus is not yet a human being and its rights should not override that of the mother's.
An importance on what defines a human is very important. Is a human the result of sperm fertilizing an egg? At this point of fertilization the human is composed of a single cell with a unique DNA structure. Killing this unique cell would be wrong, however does this single cell constitute for a person? If being human is defined through having a certain level of self awareness and acknowledgment of your person, then the fetus is not yet a human being so aborting it would be as immoral as destroying a malignant tumor (Shrage 127).
Should emphasis be placed on intelligence and awareness when interpreting what a human being is? A fetus is not a form of intelligent life because it has not yet had any experience, so therefore probably hasn't had thoughts. In his essay, Rene Descartes, argues that we truly exist because we can doubt our existence. He states, "If I completely stop thinking, I would completely cease to exist". In this sense of existence is it possible for an unborn child to doubt their existence, or truly think? (Kessler 325).
"It could be said that a person should have an interest in their own future before they earn the right to it" (Shrage 8). Even if a fetus is defined as a human being because it has a potential life, if the fetus does not yet aspire to live. It is impossible to argue that the fetus values its future yet, so why should it have a right to it?