Welcome to Gaia! ::

It's far better to argue toward self defense than simply going to the legal definition. Arguing for self-defense allows you to draw actual parallels to where killing is allowed by the law, and thus bringing up that it would be hypocritical to illegalize abortion yet keep it legal to kill someone who is raping you because of this parallel. The law must be consistent, and any exceptions must be justifiable. Making an exception for abortion is in no way justifiable as it is allowing something or someone other than you to use your body without your consent, which is not allowed under any sense of legal code or morality, especially not under Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which specifically grants the right to security of the person in international law.

It's not really that hard to draw the parallel. You could ask the person if they believe killing a rapist in self-defense is murder and shouldn't be allowed. If they say yes, they'd better have some damn good reasoning behind it. If they say no, then call consistency into question - what's the difference in terms of rights between being raped and being forced to carry to term and give birth? The situation is different, but the exact same violation of rights is being committed.

I see that argument as bring really weak because even though the law doesn't say abortion is murder, the laws can be changed! The laws change every day, all the pro-lifers need to do is petition Congress to pass a law that defines abortion as murder, which would instantly result in abortion being illegal.

I liken it to pulling the plug on someone in a persistent vegetative state. Technically, the family CAN decide for that person, even though they've already gained personhood, had experience living in the world, gained the so-called right to life, AND aren't infringing on anyone else's bodily domain.

Obviously, a human embryo doesn't have those rights, doesn't have those experiences, isn't sentient, can't feel pain, PLUS it IS infringing on someone else's bodily domain if that person doesn't want it to use her as life support.

I think it'd be better to say that its legal to kill when someone or something is invading your body or home against your will, and feed into their false little delusions, their morals, and still have a legal defense. So then we have "morals" to say that its murder, but a legal defense that still backs it up.

We can also bring up the idea that mixing personal beliefs and politics is a bad idea, because it hurts people. In this case, it hurts women and children, physically and mentally for both. Bring up examples like the "moral" idea that black people are inferior, that hurt them like they're hurting women.

The biggest mistake pro-lifers make when they say "a fetus is a person" and "abortion is murder" is that they believe the argument goes like this:

1. A fetus has a right to life/is a person.
2. It is wrong to kill someone who has a right to life.
C. It is wrong to kill a fetus.

Clearly they will not surrender premise 1 (at least not at first), so the best course of action is to attack premise 2.


A quick way to get to them is to ask how they justify premise 2. If they say it is based on their own personal religion then you can try the whole "why should your morals take precidence over mine?" The problem I have with this is that it comes off similar to the "but the law says so so it must be true," when it is not done carefully. If you immediately dismiss them because, "your religion doesn't matter to me" and you hope to convince them that their religion shouldn't matter... you'll need to justify why they should do it your way instead ( I find "how would you feel if you were forced to bow to mecca every day?" tends to get the point across well with some of the more Christian folk. You could take the gentler "how would you feel if bacon and cheeseburgers were forbidden because Jewish people cannot eat them?").


Another way to attack permise 2 is to ask them questions about their intuitions on OTHER instances of personhood and when it is acceptable to kill a human being.



These questions address: Are women obligated to fetuses?

Right now a child is dying for want of a kidney in California. Should you, or any woman, be obligated to give it one of yours? [Are you ever obligated to save the life of another by giving them your body, just because they need it to live?]

What if you are the only person in the entire world with that child's blood type? [same as above, but where your choice to say no is a death sentance for the child]

Do you believe a woman should be legally obligated to go under surgery and give a kidney/lung to her own child? [same concept as the previous two, but this one addresses parental obligation - how much do you owe your child?]

What if her child needed a heart, and she was the only person in the world with the same blood type? [this addresses if a woman should be required to give birth even if she will die - something very few pro-lifers advocate, but some do]


These questions address: When may we kill a person with a right to life?

Do you believe Euthanasia of those who are completely brain-dead is acceptable? [When is it acceptable to kill a person - in this case this person is not harmed by death (arguably)... aslo it addresses when you may kill a person who has done nothing wrong]

Do you believe women are allowed to kill a rapist in self defense? [Can you kill a person in self defense?]

What if this rapist is mentally disabled and has no idea what he is doing and has no ill will towards her? [Can you kill a person in self defense even if they mean you no harm?]


Surely there are other ways to attack the notion that a right to life can never be challenged. Those are a few that come to mind at the moment.




On Premise 1

You can try to attack premise 1, but it is far more difficult. You have to ask them questions about what makes something a person (unique genetics - well what about twins? Alive/potential - well what about eggs/sperm? etc) or what gives something a right to life (because you can feel? because you want it? what is a right? Where do rights come from?).

Odds are your typical 13-25 year old gaian will not be willing or able to come up with answers to these questions... and if they did... odds are you wouldn't be able to build much from it anyway. Answering questions about the origin of rights and personhood pretty much requires building an entire philosophy/ethical theory from scratch. It takes most people years or even an entire lifetime to do this (except Hume who had his entire philosophy down by age 17 and only waited until he was older to publish gonk makes you feel real accomplished, doesn't it? sweatdrop )... I wouldn't try it, and I'd suggest you not try it either unless the pro-lifer you're going at it with is really smart, in which case they would not have made the argument "but abortion is murder" in the first place (or, arguably, be pro-life wink ) sweatdrop

This is exactly what the first post is trying to say is a logical fallacy.


First, if a pro-lifer says a fetus is a person, they are not making an argument about the current state of the law (because clearly it is their intent to change the law) - by pretending "fetuses are people too!" is actually "according to the law fetuses are people so abortion should be outlawed!" is a strawman.

Second it is an appeal to authority, "the law says it so it must be right."

Third, you would not accept this argument yourself if abortion were outlawed (that is, "the law says women do not have a right to bodily autonomy therefore it's true.")

Fourth, as others have pointed out (and similar to the second point), the law is changing, always. There was a time when the only humans who were legal persons were men who owned property (Greece), white men who owned property (the US), White people (again, the US), and today the born (again, the US). The law can be and has been wrong about personhood before - if pro-lifers think it is wrong yet again, you'll need to address that point. Regurgitating the very law they say they disagree with won't do that.

I do not know how true this is, but it is something I've heard before (and I would need to research it to be sure it is correct)....

...but a typical person does not become fully equipped to handle abstract though necessary for this type of deep discussion (that is, to be able to understand the complexities of it), until you are 20-25 years old when the brain is fully matured (although it never stops developing). I know there are many very precocious people out there (I am certain at age 13, 15, 18, 19 a great many of you and others can clearly understand some of the most complex arguments - but you must admit, there are plenty of idiots out there that clearly do lack this sort of maturity).

I believe what you've cited above is indicative of this. If I say "no born person may infringe upon the body of another born person, and where the infraction is grievous enough lethal self-defense is acceptable... so why are the unborn different?" and someone responds with "but you can't kill a kid who is sitting on your couch," clearly something was not understood.