The Pros And Cons Of Adaptation

Firstly, the insane and mentally retarded, do indeed, have constitutional and fundamental rights as normal people. Their rights were recognized after the adaptation of the Declaration of rights for those considered mentally retarded. In which, they are given basic rights such as protection from degrading and unethical treatment, access to medical care, and physical therapy. Additionally, under this adaption, they were given rights to “education, training, rehabilitation and guidance as will enable him to develop his ability and maximum potential” (Friedman, 1977, p. 51). Moreover, people define personhood beginning when the fetus becomes ‘viable’, or in other words, when the fetus is able to survive outside the womb. Therefore, the first point

However, no one is lucky enough to selectively pick what they want as a fetus, it is entirely up to nature. Therefore, no one else should judge anyone for who they are because those who judge came into this earth the same as those who are judged. Even so, everyone is born and dies the same way, hence there is no need to take away someone else’s right to live just because they do not fit your image of ‘normal’. Ergo, the mentally retarded and the insane should have the right to live because not only are they people, they are people with desires like many of us ‘normal’ people. In regards to rights, fetuses have even less rights than the mentally retarded and the insane. This can be seen in the article, The Wrongs of Abortion, written by Philip Devine, in which Devine compares an embryo’ appearance to a fish, asserting that the moderate would give the embryo more rights than a fish but less rights than a fully developed human being. Therefore, the question of whether fetuses have the same rights as normal people is