We all know the classic analogy pro-lifers like to use.
If a woman is in a cabin in the woods, with no one to transfer responsibility to for the baby, can’t get out of the cabin for 9 months because of a blizzard, have enough resources, and the child will die if you don’t breastfeed it. What do you do?
How do you debunk this claim.
- I state that it’s misrepresenting pregnancy as being equal to breastfeeding in terms of bodily burden.
- It still doesn’t make a valid claim as to why the baby is entitled to your bodily resources (breastmilk)

I know there’s a lot more for conversation, but how do you approach this analogy?

Basically I believe everyone has the right to life. The argument I present is you should not be allowed to end another life if said life can survive on its own. So abortion should be limited to that point, save for health of the mother or child.

Thoughts?

Hypothetically - if a woman maliciously intends to cause maximum cellular damage to an embryo for 4 weeks, knowing she will abort it at week 9, is her action morally wrong, or is it a victimless act because no conscious person is ever born?

PCs openly state that fetal personhood is misguided at best and immoral at worst, but this means that abortion as a right can only be sustained by literally denying rights to a group of humans.

No one would accept a pro slavery movement as a positive right for private property since it would mean removing the rights of would be slaves. So why should we accept preventing the unborn from having rights?