Why stop at limiting foetal-infant/infant-adult comparisons to 3 vague statements of change?How about:1: They are different.Now anything based off of any difference can be tantamount to abortive murder, too. And in a third of the time.
You present my argument as follows:P1: It is wrong to kill an infantP2: An infant is different from a fetusC: It is wrong to kill a fetusObviously, this argument is not valid, but of course this is not my argument.My argument is as follows:P1: It is wrong to kill an innocent human being (Homo sapiens)P2: A fetus is an innocent human beingC: It is wrong to kill a fetusThe structure of this argument is valid, so you are going to have to refute one or both of my premises. Can you do that?
I think you put too much stock in the idea that infancy's difference from adulthood on the scales you present are comparable to those of a fetus' difference from an infant.By stating that every difference within the two comparisons falls under the umbrella of one of three things, • Difference in size • Difference in level of development • Difference in degree of dependency You suggest that all such differences are equal in meaning while sweeping any finer distinctions under the semantic carpet. Sound ridiculous? Too bad. The same process allows me to 'summarize' your three bullets as:• Difference If you feel like I just dismissed the substance of your argument through over-simplification, then you know how I feel when you suggest that humans are distinct from infants through equivalent (as you treat it) "difference in... development."That is the premise that fails you.
The difference between an infant and a fetus that makes a fetus okay to kill is that the fetus is literally living in someone, using their organs and blood etc to survive. I'm pro choice but I think after the fetus is old enough to survive on his own outside the womb, he should be able to live. I also support widening DHR and having orphanages, etc. I also want to give every child a free meal at school, require play time during school for younger ages, extend the school year, and have government daycare for 3 and 4 year olds. Unlike so many "pro-lifers" I actually care about children. I wish to adopt a few some day. Number 2 is confusing. You say infanticide is safe but giving birth is dangerous. One would have to give birth before they could do infanticide. Number 3 is a wrong interpretation of the pro choice argument. A fetus is actually using the woman's body to live. An infant is not. Sure someone will have to take care of an infant; but people have to take care of all children and even some adults. So you draw the line at when a person needs someone actual body to survive, that is when it is okay to let them die. Otherwise you would be saying it is okay to use a woman's body for the life of another....then where do you draw the line at forcing others to give up their rights for others to live? Do you force people to donate blood then? Do you kill old poor people and give their organs to young successful people? You would then have to draw a line there. (On number 7, you are actually correct. Any law made will violate separation of state and religion. It's is because morality is subjective. I hold opinions because I would feel lost without them. Anyway it's just best not to even start arguing that morality is subjective or objective because then you will wonder what is the point of anything and want to kill yourself.)
Post a Comment