I hope you won't mind if I use this post to organize my thoughts a little. This thread has covered a lot of ground and I'm not sure every area has
The question that divides the two arguing camps is "Is Abortion Murder?" Murder is defined, at least in my mind, as the killing of an innocent human
being. Abortion is certainly the killing of something. And whatever it is that is killed is surely innocent of everything. So we're left with "If
the fetus is a human being, then abortion is murder."
Notice "If the fetus is
a human being . . . " It doesn't matter what we call the fetus, what matters is what it actually is
example, there was a time when slaves were not considered fully human. Therefore, the killing of an innocent slave was not considered
even thought it actually was
So, to show abortion is not murder, we must prove that the fetus is not a human being. What do pro-choicers propose?
Consciousness? That doesn't work since animals are conscious and human beings are not always conscious. But perhaps there is a difference between
a person and functioning
as one. We're still human even if we're under anaesthesia, for example.
Rationality? Three month-olds, and sleepers are not rational, but they're both human. They are humans, even if they're not functioning as humans.
The Fetus, too, is not functioning
as human, but as we have seen, that's not proof that it is not human.
It's a Potential
human being? But that doesn't help. It may be called
a potential human being, but if it is a potential for something,
it has to be an actual
something right now. What is it? Not what might it become, but what is it right now? There is no safe position for
the pro-choicer other than "It's alive, but it's not human." That's not a position I'd enjoy defending. What, it's an alien? It's a fish? It's a
It's a part of the mother? That leads us to the ridiculous conclusion, as noted before, that that means half of the mothers have a penis during
It's dependent on it's mother? Well, consider a one-month old and an adult. The one-month old is much more dependent on it's mother than the adult
is, so if dependency makes a fetus "not human," it should be less of an offense to kill a one month-old than an adult. Further, a one month-old is
completely dependent on it's mother, as is the fetus, but the one month-old is human. And it's not dependent on it's mother for it's identity, it's
DNA is uniquely the fetus'.
Viability? Consider a child born prematurely. In a city with a modern hospital, it is taken care of, and eventually develops normally, considered a
person from the time of it's pre-mature birth. What if the same situation occurs in a wilderness 500 miles away? There is no special care, the baby
is not viable, so under the viability rule it was not a person. Does anyone really want to claim that someone is a person or not, depending on where
they were born?
Something new is created at conception, respected scientists disagree on it's nature. It's not a very good argument to claim that only the scientists
opposed to your opinion are biased. If one side can be considered biased, then so can the other side, and where does that get us? An unresolved
question. And are you really willing to kill something when you don't know if it's human or not? Remember the hunters who saw the rustle in the
I'm sure I haven't covered everything, but what is the argument that the pro-choice group has for proving that the fetus is not a human being? They
bear the burden of proof. If they're going to kill things, they have to be able to show that they're not killing humans. And it's not enough to say
"I think they're not humans," or "My opinion is that they're not humans."
edit on 9-7-2013 by charles1952 because: Word choice