/lit/ - Literature

>>6306234
>The argument often comes down to showing what a fetus actually looks like at 24 weeks and using the resemblance to a born child to shock people
Whose argument? I never put that forward, Marquis didn't put that forward (I assume you're referring to his future of value approach), and I'm not putting that forward. Why would the way a fetus "looks" matter at all? No one is making this argument....

>In my view the only steadfast objection to abortion is the sacredness of life, whether that's a religious or post-religious view.
Exactly, and that's one of the tenets of humanism is focusing on the importance, specifically, of human life.

Hitchens explains his position on abortion in one of his debates (and a little in some of his writings with Vanity Fair). Essentially, he says that the concept of an "unborn child" is a real one, we know this isn't going to come out as a giraffe, and it's not like there is some magical moment when a fetus (sidenote: why do pro-choicers prefer to use the term "fetus" as if it proves their point of the child being a non-human? I don't understand that. "Fetus" is just another stage of human development along with infant, toddler, adolescent, etc.) becomes a "person."

The whole "pro-choice" argument never really makes much sense. The science isn't on their side and, more importantly, the philosophy isn't.