"A fetus isn’t an independent, sentient and unique person and therefore it doesn’t have a right to life."
There are implicit premises of the argument that aren’t verbally stated when articulating the argument. These have to be included or else the argument will not be valid.
The goal here is to state the pro-abortion arguments in their most convincing forms. Straw-manning an opponent’s argument is a logical fallacy that should always be avoided.
The argument’s format looks like this:
P1): There is a moral difference between a POTENTIAL person and a REAL person.
P2): A REAL person is entitled to fundamental, inalienable rights, which include the right to life.
P3): A POTENTIAL person is NOT entitled to fundamental, inalienable rights, which include the right to life.
P4): A POTENTIAL person will become a REAL person after passing a certain threshold of time or achieving milestone.
For example, heartbeat, third trimester, birth, etc. Defining the exact threshold is much more difficult than simply stating that a threshold, in fact, exists.
C): An unborn infant that has not passed the appropriate threshold of time or achieved the pertinent milestone is a POTENTIAL person and, therefore, is NOT entitled to a right to life.
This argument, when stated this way, is valid. Nevertheless, there are major problems with P1, P3 and P4. Watch the video and find out what they are.
