The Fire Knight wrote:
Not really sure what you're trying to argue here. I would consider the Declaration of Independence pretty fundamental to the founding of America, regardless of whether or not it is "directly responsible for legal doctrine". As to literally reading it, if you want to nitpick at the men part then I suppose that's fine. But either way, I'm pretty sure Jefferson wasn't being allegorical and metaphorical when he said life, so I'm not sure where that gets you. And either way, as you said, the Declaration isn't law. But the law does give the right to life, so...
I am arguing that appealing to the Declaration of Independence gets you nowhere, because I believe that it is an incredible document that supports our nation, and also believe that women should have the right to abort a child. I simply don't believe that the right to life applies to a fetus.
Not really liking your euphemism here.
You started the "science lesson;" I merely continued in that vein.
When you say genetically a member of the species Homo sapiens, why don't you just say they are a human being?
It is your question that is fallible here. While a fetus is indeed, on a genetic basis, a member of the same species as its mother, I don't believe that it is a "human being" if what you mean by human being is an organism that has the right to life. If I can safely say it's a human being and still believe that it doesn't have the right to life while in the form of a fetus, I'll do that. The terminology is irrelevant.
I don't believe that pro-lifers can actually articulate a reason that it is wrong to kill a fetus -- they only resort to the argument that it's genetically the same being and thus deserves the same protections. But this avoids the entirety of substantive debate on ethics, and is no more than an attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes. Let me clarify what I mean when I accuse you of engaging in circular reasoning. Your method of argumentation is to first get us to agree that a fetus is a human. Your next argument is that it is wrong to kill a human, and therefore it is immoral to kill a fetus. That's all fine, except that I
don't believe it is wrong to kill a "human" in all circumstances. That is, I don't believe that you can equate the killing of a fetus and the murder of an adult human. So you can't try to trick me into admitting I believe it, when really what was wrong was your assumption that the killing of a human being is always wrong.
If you want to justify the statement that it is immoral to kill a fetus, there needs to be a
reason why it is such. A reason why the killing of a fetus ought to be considered on the same moral level as the murder of an adult human. Saying that a fetus is the same as an adult human, when they are most certainly not the same thing, is semantical trickery and nothing more. They might be treated equally under the law, but not without actually arguing why they should be treated the same.
I mean, you can say that you need to be biologically independent to be a full human. But do you have any justification for that? Why is that true?
It is not a statement of truth; it is, as I mentioned, a perspective. This is because this is emphatically not a question of biology but one of ethics. I believe that as an ethical matter, it is not wrong to kill a fetus.
Hmmm... This has brought up a common argument against making abortion illegal, and I should have originally addressed this in my first argument.
5. Many people argue that making abortion illegal is sexist, patriarchal, and discriminatory. They argue that this does not allow women control over their own bodies, and forces them to have and take care of children when they don't want to. I think that the idea that men are not equally responsible for raising their children is completely wrong. A child is the product of both men and women, and they should be held equally responsible for decisions regarding them. But if a woman does not want to have children, abortion is not the answer.
... back to what you said. I think the basic flaw in the argument above is the assumption that only the woman is put into "involuntary servitude", when in fact both parties are equally responsible. Also, not really sure how raising children is indentured servitude. Perhaps we should outlaw having kids b/c of this? Which only leaves that 9 months a woman is pregnant. Which, yes, I suppose if very discriminatory. How dare God make us different, and make women have to be pregnant. Perhaps we should invent insta-babies? I don't know. Might be something scientists ought to look into.
Easy way out -- so if a man and a woman
both want their child to be aborted, isn't it OK then?
