The husband-and-wife duo, George and Sheila Grant, undertook the highly controversial topic of abortion and the many elements that pertain to foetal rights in their "Abortion and Rights" essay. It is apparent from the authors' captivating arguments that they are against the legalization of abortion. Although persuasive, their essay contains numerous fallacies that will be addressed in this essay. In result, the arguments are weakened by said fallacies and lack the persuasive method that the author intended to evoke. The following paragraphs will provide a critique of the essay, whether or not the evidence examined is indeed supportive and valid of their claim. .
Let us first begin with their initial statement they made in the first paragraph. "The right of a woman to have an abortion can only be made law by denying to another member of our species the right to exist." They argue that foetal rights are lower than that of the mother by default if we are to allow abortions, hence the following linked premise "The right of women to freedom, privacy and other good things is put higher than the right of the foetus to continued existence." By stating this fact, they claim that the foetus and woman are both of the same species and hence should be subjected to the same set of rules. If humans have rights and if foetuses are human (based on their claim) then the foetus must have the same level of rights as the mother. Although the secondary premise made, is linked to the 1st, there is a noticeable lack of evidence to validate the claim. In terms of committed fallacies we may find some in this argument. .
Firstly, the claim that foetuses and the mothers of said foetuses should be held to the same level is a disputable claim "And because the foetus is of the same species as the mother, we are we are inevitable turned back onto the fundamental question of principle: what is it about the mother (or any human being) that makes it proper that she should have rights?".