- May 19, 2011
- 18,503
- 11,163
- 136
Many pro-choice proponents regard the 'life begins at conception' argument to be a red herring (as they consider it to be missing the point) and choose to focus on bodily autonomy of living, breathing human beings, which I think is a valid argument, but I can't help but think that pro-lifers will consider this to be ignoring arguments that pro-choicers disagree with.
IMO if you want to change peoples' minds on a topic like abortion, the best tactic is to dismantle their own argument.
With regard to 'life begins at conception', pro-lifers tend to like it a lot because it's an absolutist technicality that they can hinge their entire argument on. My counter-argument is this:
Do you believe that human beings deserve rights that other lifeforms don't? If so, why?
My logic being that if one considers human beings to be fundamentally different from other life forms and so therefore deserving of extra rights, the basis for their argument has to be based on the intellectual merits of the human condition. Logically you can't grant a clump of cells human rights because biologically speaking there are billions of lifeforms on this planet that are capable of the same feat. Nor do we grant children the rights of an adult because they don't have the mental capacity of an adult, but they do get some rights. A foetus at most stages of development is not even capable of breathing unaided.
Any thoughts on the validity of this argument? It's not the whole picture obviously, but I think it's sufficient and is compatible with the general pro-choice perspective.
IMO if you want to change peoples' minds on a topic like abortion, the best tactic is to dismantle their own argument.
With regard to 'life begins at conception', pro-lifers tend to like it a lot because it's an absolutist technicality that they can hinge their entire argument on. My counter-argument is this:
Do you believe that human beings deserve rights that other lifeforms don't? If so, why?
My logic being that if one considers human beings to be fundamentally different from other life forms and so therefore deserving of extra rights, the basis for their argument has to be based on the intellectual merits of the human condition. Logically you can't grant a clump of cells human rights because biologically speaking there are billions of lifeforms on this planet that are capable of the same feat. Nor do we grant children the rights of an adult because they don't have the mental capacity of an adult, but they do get some rights. A foetus at most stages of development is not even capable of breathing unaided.
Any thoughts on the validity of this argument? It's not the whole picture obviously, but I think it's sufficient and is compatible with the general pro-choice perspective.