Originally Posted by
RayA75
The argument boils down to how we come to have life. Also, fetuses are not persons. I know. They do not have life. They do not need to have life to have the right to become. They should be endowed with the right to become because through the fetus' processes, we get life. We need the to become to have life. Since we protect life, we must then protect the process by which we get life, the development of the fetus.
Ah, that's more clear.
Regardless, I think protection or termination of that process should be up to individual mothers, and not the government. I don't fancy the thought of countless unwilling brood maidens for the state.
P1 A is indispensable for B
P2 B is regarded as important and is protected
C A also must then be important and protected
I don't think the conclusion necessarily follows.
Saying that people (once they exist) are entitled to protection isn't quite the same as saying we need more of them. We need less. More abortions. Preferably in hospitals, and not with wire hangers.
Originally Posted by
RayA75
Putting convenience in front of life is unethical, and misvalued. Without life, all other rights, including that of convenience. As a culture, we value the satisfaction of our desires, our convenience, our freedom, our wants, over more objective concerns such as that of the becoming. To become is an objective concern. To want is subjective.
Elaborate, please.
What makes 'becoming' an "objective concern"? As far as I'm aware concerns are subjective, and something a fetus lacks.
Last edited by Odlov; Mar 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM.