First of all Purdy confronts the problem of women havi

In the latter part of Purdy's article, she grapples fundamental moral questions that are at the heart of the debate: Is the fetus a person or not? "What do we owe others who do not yet exist? What legally enforceable duties towards such future persons can be exacted of us?" These questions are answered by comparing a child of which is a person to a fetus that is not a moral person. In legal terms a mother cannot be forced to save the life of her child by donating her organs, therefore it's her choice to do so. If in deed a child were a person than what since would it make for a mother to be forced to submit to invasive surgical procedures for the sake of her fetus than for her child. On the same note how can we expect mothers to owe more to a fetus than to an independent living-breathing child. "Parents are not expected to submit to bodily invasions to save a dying child, then a women should not be expected to do so for the benefit of a fetus." Parenthood and pregnancy become a relevant difference in defining whether it's permissible to abort the fetus. If a child is denied life because a parent refuses to donate bone marrow for example, than certainly our legal system cannot logically order women to proceed with the birth of the child.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Laura Purdy, Thirdly Purdy, fetus person, person fetus, person fetus moral, fetus moral, rights mother, moral status, , abortion fetus person, fetus moral status, child world, fetus child, abortion fetus, child person, save life,
Approximate Word count = 936
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)