This is the question that has to be addressed in order to determine whether a child has a right to life. However the question is based on does “every child” have a right to life, in which case various situations where a child might not be allowed a right to live may arise. In such an instance of rape, does the child have a right to life? One would argue the case for the mother, surely she has the right over her own body and her welfare overrules the child of the rapist? If a birth will result in the mother’s death, does she not have the right to abort?
In Christian terms there is no differentiation between the born and unborn. Both are afforded equal protection under the statement given in Exoddus 21. Though there has been some controversy about the interpretation of this passage, many agree that its meaning is: "When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her child comes forth but no mischief happens, that is, the woman and the child do not die, the one who hurt her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the child, then you shall give life for life."
From this passage, God makes no legal distinction between a person born and one not yet born. Both are of equal value to God. Therefore it could be argued that every child has a right to life from a Christian perspective. Clearly this is a very vague and weak argument when deciding upon abortions, it has no real “backbone”. The issue of abortion on a legal basis should purely not be concerned with what the Bible says or the discoveries made by fetologists. Surely the argument is based on what is the ethical decision. Of course this is very broad and vague subject and presents itself with many problems instantaneously. For example, how can something “ethical” be called universal if we consider cultural relativism and the different people all with their own views and religions. Any generalized statement made about whether a child has a right to life would have limited value in a given situation. Personally I believe situation ethics to be one of the best solutions to this ethical problem. Although it could be argued that situation ethics is generalized in itself because it has not got an answer for everything, however I believe that if it is used in conjunction with other theories and views, it could be effective and help lead to the “right” decision. For example, a fourteen year old girl suffering from a severe brain tumor and is suffering immense pain and there is clearly no way of curing her condition or even improving it, her future is likely to be unbearable. Would it be politically correct to euthanase her, in order to cease her pain, which would benefit all parties, especially her? How would such a case be dealt with? Is it right to maintain her life and prevent natural death, yet force her to live through such pain and misery?
However this situation is far more complicated than one would initially assess. Consider the implications of the girl’s parents having very strong views on Christianity or Bhuddism. Ideas on euthanasia vary in different religions. As such, situation ethics can be applied quite effectively. In the unlikely situation that the parents wish to prolong their daughter’s life as long as possible and the daughter agrees, then her life should probably prolonged, even at the expense of medical care. However it is more likely that the girlin this situation would not want to continue suffering and desire euthanasia despite her parents strongly believing in their Christian views. If this was the case, where do the child’s rights fall into place? Some would argue that the child is too young and is willing to give up too easily, rendering her unable to make her own rational decision. Others would argue that the girl is clearly in unimaginable pain and her bleak future only leads on to a logical extrapolation of desiring an end to such an existence.
Does every child have the right to life in every situation, should be the question. In some cases it could easily be argued that parents have the overruling decision on the matter. In other cases it is difficult to weigh up the rights of each party. Take the example of a mother who has to decide whether to sacrifice her own life for her child to be born or to save herself and have an abortion. Is the decision even up to the mother, does the child not have reputable right to be born regardless of its subsequences?
The nature of such an ethical issue on the right to life is clearly, a very broad topic and could be argued from many angles in varying situations. When is a child considered a life, at conception or at birth? This alone is very controversial, because it implies that it is then ethically correct to abort a child when it is fetus, if your view is that a child only gains a “soul” or is considered a viable life at birth because it can then feel, breathe and grow to fend for itself. The topic is far to broad to have any sort of conclusion about, apart from the fact that a child’s rights to life will differ between the situation and factors involving it.