who already agrees with you. I'm looking for a standard that doesn't rely on conclusions about who's right. I mean, you're trying to tell abortion opponents that they have no business trying to make abortion illegal in any way, but your argument depends on them agreeing with you... Which they don't.
"Life (in the sense that abortion opponents use) has not been proven to begin at conception."
But... Nothing's been proven either way. Why does your position get the presumption of being correct? Also, it's not "either conception or birth". IIRC, we've learned a great deal about when brain activity begins, when fetuses (feti?) begin to feel pain, etc. Why not use brain activity as the deciding factor? Or viability, if we can define that objectively? Why birth?
Frankly, I really don't see how "it's not a person until after birth" is rational. I'm not saying you're irrational, just that I've never seen a defense of that position that I thought was at all reasonable. I understand not accepting conception as the breaking-point, but putting it off till birth? I just don't see it.
"Secondarily, the position that fetus remains a fetus until birth imposes onerous restrictions on no one."
Except for the fetus, if it actually is alive. Again, your argument assumes you're right. |
