Response to Rhatican's sentiments

Rhatican's argument is grounded on the assumption that all humans have a right to life.

Furthermore, Rhatican states that abortion in the cases of rape are immoral, and that "her (the fetus) murder compounds the injustice of the rape."

If all humans have a right to life (including fetuses), and these rights supersede any other circumstances (including crimes, such as rape), then it logically follows that killing or murder of any sort to justify or make due with (in the case of rape) the outcome of any such crimes would be equally immoral.

If all humans have a right to life, and this right cannot be superseded by any crime committed, then it follows that any killing to justify a crime is immoral.

And so, for example, it necessarily follows that the death sentence would be equally immoral as abortion.

If all humans have the right to life, and this right cannot be superseded by any circumstances, then how is killing on the battle field the morally right thing to do? Or what's more, how is any killing or murder whatsoever moral?

1. If all humans have a right to life, then they would never be murdered under the guise of moral imperatives.

2. It is the case that humans are murdered under the guise of moral imperatives.

3. Not all humans have a right to life.

On the battlefield, because of orders and because of the circumstances of war, it is acceptable to murder the "others." This acceptability must be attributable to realms other than that of conflict in war. In war, we are killing in order to not be killed, and we are killing so that others can live.

In terms of abortion, what if the female in question will die if she does not get her abortion? Furthermore, what if it is not her free choice to have the baby in the first place? (Such is the case with rape victims).

Is it morally right to force her to have it anyway, just because the "demand for newborn adoption greatly exceeds the supply" as Rhatican states? Should we let the mother die so the baby that she never wanted, or maybe even was fertilized against her free will, can live because it is immoral to do otherwise?

This begs the question, since common knowledge would certainly say that forcing someone to do something against their free will (that also results in their inevitable death) would be moral in comparison to the 'immoral' act of abortion.

Rhaticans argument goes as followed:

1.If x then not a

2. x (upon conception)

3. Not a

Premise two adds additional information that does not follow from the first premise. Thus, this argument cannot logically hold and so is invalid.

Validity:the conclusion must follow from the premises. That is, it cannot be the case that the premises are true and the conclusion false. The truth of the premises are not sufficiently supported. Adding "upon conception" does not follow from the first premise.

The argument should be revised

as follows:

1. If an embryo is a human being upon conception then it should not be aborted.

2. An embryo is a human being upon conception.

3. The embryo should not be aborted.

From here, one would need to add support as to why aborting a human and thus killing it is immoral. This definition of immoral is not provided in Rhaticans argument.