Why pro-choice is logically inconsistent
A pro-choice pregnant woman has got her unborn baby kicked dead by a jealous friend. Is this pro-choice pregnant woman going to sue her friend for manslaughter? Or according to her pro-choice logic, she only wants to sue for the loss of a body part, a parasite or a non-human living organism in her body?
In majority of such cases, the pro-choice woman would want to press manslaughter charges against the killer.
But why does a pro-choice woman still want to kill the unborn herself when she herself wants to?
This is all because that she believes she can change the definition of her unborn baby depending on what she likes.
The society has to come to agreement to such important definition of what an unborn baby is. As we all know very well, our society already treats children and babies, as the most fragile and protected members. While unborn babies are even more fragile, we allow pro-choice women to have the liberty to treat them as non-human lives when they don't want the babies, basically allow them to change the definition of what an unborn baby is.
Every thorny problem is basically a logical error. Every logical error can almost always be traced to the very definition of the entity involved.
There is only one definition of what an unborn baby is to avoid confusions in all scenarios. An unborn baby regardless of length of pregnancy IS a human life.
I used the above argument and more illustrations to change a pro-choice woman to become pro-life. She majored in philosophy.
Comments and arguments are welcome!
P.S. I leave the question of whether a woman owns the unborn baby as an exercise for readers. Some pro-choice think the unborn baby is kind of their own property. LoL
Wow, I just... Wow. So whew shall I start...
So if I understand correct you want to take the Human Right to live(which I'm all for) and want to connect that with the definition of what a human child is with a constructed case to brand Pro-Choice as "logically inconsistent".
But as I already pointed out you constructed a very specific case there to make the whole pro-life/pro-choice muddy.
The political view of the assaulted women doesn't matter in legal cases. If she wanted that child, you should face severe punishment, regardless how soceity treats abortion as a whole(nothing can destroy a would be mother more than losing her child trust me, I know some cases on personal basis).
This kind of arguments against pro-choice is just a smoke grenade to hide the fact, that there are unwated pregnacies(like those resulting of rape) and in some states/countries the fact, that they are denied their choice will lead some to the point, that they would very much like to be kicked to miscarriage. As an example here is a clip from Last Week Tonight about Arbotion Laws in America USA And last but not least, this is a serious Issue and not a topic to and with a LOL. I can only advice you to watch the afromentioned video as a whole and change your opinion. Have a good day.
i constructed this case to illustrate that when the pregnant want the baby, she regards the baby as a human bein. but when she doesn't want the baby, she does not regard the baby as a human being.
Well of course she regards a wanted baby as a human living being. It is called emotions and if there is one thing, that makes people act illogical is emotion. Could you blame her? This also works the other way around, to convice yourself that the unborn is not a human being yet, if you don't want to put up with a child for whatever reason. (i.E not being able to support a child, having emotional traume...) Could you blame her?
All in all people are great to convince themself of anything and therefore such constructed cases shouldn't be used as dismissing those people and their positions as illogical, if you want to be taken seriously in a debate about a moral conflict.
whether an unborn baby is a human being is NOT a political view, but a logical problem, an important definition. we either regard the unborn baby as a human being in all scenarios or not a human being in all scenarios. we CANNOT sometimes regard the unborn baby as a human being but sometimes don't. hope you see where i'm coming from.
Well if you want to talk about legal defenitions: I present to you Murder vs Manslaugther. In both cases, you have someone, who killed another person. Still we have 2 defintions depending of the situation with different sentences. So it would be completly fine(for lawcases) to regard the wishes of the would be mother as a factor for the type of crime commited by the man. Therefore you should not try to transfer something so flexible as the law to moral discussions.
I personally am fed up with the whole "is a unborn child at a certian point a human with the right to life" question. Not because I don't believe in the human right to live(which I do), but because life can be a burden especially nowdays and we shouldn't commit people to suffering(parents and their childreen alike), if the women doesn't believe she could be a providing mother or would psychology suffer from being forced to motherhood.
So you may cling to this fundamental question or try to accept that we should every person give the freedom to live their lifes as they see fit, instead of disregarding their free will for whatever reason. I hope you see where I'm coming from.
I fear you will have some real thinking and typing to do if any real philosophers choose to comment here - especially logicians.
I'm happy you're thinking about these problems!