Okay, and it is…?
The obvious… nearly everyone agrees that it is wrong to kill a 1 day old baby. Therefore it is wrong to kill a baby 1 day before birth, because it is basically identical to a 1 day old baby. Then apply recursion.
Like I said, I think the counterarguments are stronger and more convincing, but there are no logical FLAWS in that argument. It’s sound. I just don’t find it persuasive.
Then how do you feel about the million sperm I just murdered?
Sure, there are. It relies on an unproven premise - that a baby one day before birth is “basically identical” to a baby one day after birth. More specifically, it ignores the very real difference between the two. It’s like an argument that relies on a fired bullet being metallurgically “basically identical” to an unfired bullet.
I have no desire to argue for a position I disagree with, it’s exhausting and pointless. It’s just that I can not dismiss the pro-life position as irrational and baseless.
Well, I take issue with you characterizing it as “very strong”, “obvious” and without “logical FLAWS”, whether you agree with it or not, because I can casually point out where you’re wrong. That’s just how I roll.
Well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree except that we actually agree but don’t agree about why we agree.
Well, you can be comical if you want, but I figure you’re just wrong in giving more credit to a position than it deserves.
I would object that 1 day olds are “basically identical” to a baby 1 day before birth. As my personal threshold for human rights is birth, I have no problems aborting one and not the other. And isn’t recursion just a fancy way of saying slippery slope?
None of them are a unique genetic individual. They have only the father’s genes.
So, what about the unique genetic individuals that die every month from birth control pills that prevent zygotes from implanting in the uterine wall? Are they entitled to protection by force of law?
That’s what you’d have to say if you’re a “life begins at conception” philosopher. Apparently sperm and/or eggs, while living, are not life.
So if a woman’s pregnant with identical twins…
They are life. They are not human life. They are part of a human being, but not a human being in their own right.
Is that a legal right or “in their own right” in the more casual sense?
Casual, but it’s also true in a legal sense. If I cut off my finger, the finger is human but not “human life,” and if an assailant cuts off my finger, he’s not guilty of murder if the finger dies,
What if you went to him specifically to have the finger removed?
I’m basically mocking your efforts to distill a set of conditions in which abortion is bad while utterly ignoring the pregnant woman’s opinion on the matter.
Then he’s not guilty of assisted suicide.
I think murder of a born infant is bad while utterly ignoring any of those infant’s mothers’ opinions.
Good for you. What does that have to do with abortion, though?
Is there any difference between a born child and a fertilized ovum?