Thank you for making an argument.
A fetus is a unique stage of human life, incomparable to any other stage.
Every human being who has ever lived has been a fetus. There are no exceptions. If we assume that the basic definition of personhood is self-evident (to assume otherwise requires superfluous argument)
But there's the rub, isn't it? People
do argue personhood. They want it for other animals. In making the argument why they are wrong we condemn the unborn. If we're ready to accept a fetus as a person but not a vegetative adult or a tasty tasty pig, why?
to be a person requires having been a fetus. If you kill the fetus, you kill the person.
But you just said that to be a person requires you to
have been a fetus.. clearly, the fetus isn't the person, and therefore killing a fetus is not killing a person.
If you kill the person, you kill what has grown from the fetus.
Again you say the fetus isn't a person.
Just as there is no exception to the rule that says every person first must be a fetus, there is no exception to the rule that says every fetus is a nascent person. The two are inseparable. The state of being a fetus is intrinsic to humanity. No exceptions.
Is a "nascent person" a person? You don't seem to think so.
In any case, I specifically said I'm willing to
grant that a fetus is a person for the sake of argument.. otherwise we can't even have a moral argument. Why are you still arguing a point that I've already granted you? All you're doing is weakening your own case.
The pro-life argument is not an argument solely about the role of government - or as I see it, the role of a moral and just society compelling its government to act. It is a moral argument at its very core.
Agreed. Although I personally don't see compelling a government to enforce just any old morality as being acceptable. Protecting the rights of individuals - which, I remind you, I have already granted you includes the fetus - is the sole legitimate function of government.
How does a society demonstrate the value it places on human life? How does a humane society treat its most vulnerable members? What entities within a society will give voice to the voiceless? What defines murder? Those are moral questions with relevant moral answers.
Which are phrased in such a way that individual liberty takes the backseat. Either move it to the front seat or you'll fail to convince me.
To argue for life based on the constitution and its guarantees is all well and good, but I consider the questions and answers invoked and evoked along those lines to be supporting arguments, not the thesis. The crux of the matter is a moral question. Does society sanction the killing of children at the behest of anothers whim, or does it not? It is no more complicated than that.
I don't disagree with this.. I take some objection to the implication of using "children" to refer to a fetus. Why? Because children are not dependent upon anyone in the same way a fetus is. If the fetus can be separated from its mother without killing it then I think we have very little to argue about - a mother who no longer wishes to carry it should be free to undergo that procedure, accepting both the risk to herself and the fetus. The only time we have disagreement is when the fetus
cannot safely be removed. Now there is a conflict between the individual rights of the mother and the fetus. Is the mother obligated to provide for the fetus until such time as it can safely be removed? I say no for the same reason that I say I will not work for another against my will.
