OK, but you do understand that when it was legal for some human beings to hold other human beings in bondage, it was also felt that the Declaration of Independence (with its language about "all men being endowed by their creator, etc") did not apply to slaves.
Slaves were, by definition, not "human beings".
Because, of course, that would have meant that those who held slaves were holding -- in bondage -- other human beings.
Now, of course, people who are pro-choice with reagrd to whether a woman should be allowed to hire a doctor to kill her unborn child point to the "fact" that aa fetus is not a human being.
But, of course, an fetus is a human being. Because if it is not a human being, what, then is it?
Just as the slave owners of old could not admit gthat they held other human beings in bondage, and so had to de-humanize their slaves, so those who support abortion as an option must de-humanize the victims of their notions.
Eventually, the notion that unborn children are human beings who do not deserve to be killed will become as wide-spread as the notion that Black people are human beings who do not deserve to be held in bondage.
My only regret is that it will take so long before we understand that correctly.
I'm pro-choice, and you make a valid argument. If I were pro life (which I used to be), I'd probably be saying the same thing. The problem with the issue of abortion is that there's such an incredibly grey area in between sides, but people tend to act as if it were a black and white issue. One guy's going "There's no grey area when it comes to killing childen!!!", and another's going "There's no grey area in forcing women to have kids!!!".
The issue is decided by how it's framed. No one thinks killing kids should be legal and very few think that, say, condoms kill babies. The question that no one knows the answer to is "When does a sperm and an egg become a child?" One's answer to that question determines whether they're pro-life or pro-choice.
After much thought, in my head I've drawn that line as "at or near birth". I can see the logic of saying that when a fetus can live outside the womb freely, it could be considered a child... so I could understand someone drawing that line at a month or two before birth. However, most pro-lifers draw the line at conception, and they're certainly entitled to draw it wherever they want seeing as it is an opinion, but it doesn't pass the test of reason for me.
And since I don't accept the reasoning, I don't accept abortion as murder. If we were talking about, say, abortion 2 days before expected delivery, then I most likely would. And so does the government.
Now, how do we use the slavery/"inferior human beings with fewer rights" argument to argue against abortion, but keep that argument from being used in regards to homosexuality? Thoughts?