Abortion 2.01

Very briefly, Becky, my 2nd post places the burden of proof not on the anti-abortion side but on the pro-abortion side. It’s clear that life begins at conception. I can elaborate that position if required but with you it’s not necessary. Therefore, the only way that a pro-abortion advocate can justify abortion is to argue in some way that the being, the fetus, is not human, that it falls into some such category like nascent-human or whatever terms they wish to use. They have to show that this category lacks the right of life and/or that the woman’s right supersedes it.

I have no need to present a personal position. I have no need to discuss the religious side of this issue. My aim is clarifying the argument or making all the arguments more transparent. In this regard, as I reason it out, you see, anyone who argues for a woman’s right to her body and ignores the inception of life within her cannot be giving a complete argument and cannot be refuting the fact that life begins at conception. Walter Block’s argument will likewise fail. Rothbard’s parasite argument fails. If a pro-abortion advocate wishes to rebut your arguments by arguing against the human character of a fetus, then you may wish to shape your counter-arguments in response. If you argue as in this post and your previous one, I expect a further debate will result between you and a pro-abortion advocate that cannot be settled. I’m not that advocate, but I did think I should clarify my 2nd post. My 1st post was reaching for something new to say, a new idea or way of framing the question that anyone could grasp, but it didn’t get there. I didn’t realize at that point the logic that was forming in my mind that I’ve explained above, that logic being to state clearly a condition that must be maintained by a pro-abortion advocate if he or she is to justify their position.

Share

9:08 pm on December 27, 2018