Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
That guy's argument is "Pro-choicers are factually correct but they're ignoring that it is murder." And as pro-choicers are not ignoring anything, but do not consider a fetus to be human life, I'm underwhelmed by his "argument"
|
Newest logical fallacy - begging the question.
"Not considering a fetus to be human life" does indeed mean abortion wouldn't be murder. But the question of whether or not it is a human life is in no way decided - that is in fact the point on which the two sides disagree. If it isn't a human life, which is apparently your argument,what is it? A non-human life? - Especially once he/she can exist outside of the mother's womb - at that point the parasitic argument is rendered moot.
If abortion is indeed a right, is it an unlimited one? Most rights can be exercised on a sliding scale of sorts - your right to exercise it is limited by its intrusion on others' rights. As even Roe v. Wade made clear - a fetus has more of a right to have his/her right to life considered the further along in development it is. Thus the differences spelled out in the limits of a woman's right to an abortion according to the trimester of development - which to return to my earlier point about ultrasounds would be much easier to deduce with an ultrasound than in trying to figure out when the baby was conceived, especially in an unplanned preganancy. Also, if we start framing the discussion in terms of competing rights, a strong argument can be made that if a woman is indeed in the tiny minority of women whose lives are threatened by a pregnancy her right to live supercedes that of the unborn baby.
I wish the debate weren't being lead by either side's more extreme members. I also think that ultimately the war will be won non-legislatively. But that's another thread.
Threaded Mode
