The Atheist Obsession with Insulting Christians

[Esquilax]

The development of an infant within one's womb reveals the reality of the said infant developing into a fully formed human being. The future does contain people; its not an assumption, but a fact.

Certainly, but the point I was making was that our assumptions of the future don't pertain to any specific individual person, just the fact that there will be people in the future, which itself is not a certainty; we could all be wiped out tomorrow by a previously unseen meteor, after all.

What is a person? A person is simply an individual. All sentient lifeforms are individuals.

And a fetus without a brain is not sentient. Case closed.

Who cares if the unborn don't have fully functional brains?

I do, for the same reasons that I care whether a person is brain dead or not. A fetus and a brain dead human are practically the same, just approaching the same state from opposite angles; I don't care about terminating a fetus because there's no person in there to terminate, and I don't care about euthanizing a brain dead human because there's no person in there either. What I care about is consciousness, not simply the mechanical processes of keeping a body alive. You know, the valuable part of a human.

 They will develop their brains, and the other functions, in time.

So do sperm. Therefore, all sperm should be expended in a fertile womb, regardless of the consent of the women involved. Your argument leads to clearly illegal acts, and thus you're reduced to applying it inconsistently. Wrong again.

Fetuses are still fundamentally human: they have the human nature, appearance, etc. They therefore should be treated as such.

Who cares about a human appearance? Corpses have a human appearance, I don't see you valiantly fighting for their lives.

It does not matter if the fetus lacks the capacity to think (brain). We know in certainty that it has the human nature, and that it will fully develop in a matter of months, so we might as well treat it as human.

As Losty has already explained, even if you want to treat it as a human, that doesn't confer upon it the right to commandeer another human body as a host vessel to prolong its life. If any other human hooked themselves up to a woman without her consent to feed off of her organs to keep themselves alive you would consider that insane, and them criminals. You're trying to grant special rights to fetuses, and therein lies the problem.

And again, you run afoul of the fact that a sperm can also fully develop into a conscious human in a matter of months, therefore we must allow rape (aka: the use of a woman's body without her consent, which is exactly what we're talking about with abortion) to ensure that every sperm produced has that opportunity.

"If personhood is determined by one's current capacities, then someone who is unconscious or could be killed because he is not demonstrating superior intellect and skills. “But give the man time and he'll be able to function as a person.” Give the baby time and so will she."

"Current capacities," is a strawman. The issue isn't one of capacity, it's one of consciousness. A sleeping person has an established consciousness that persists even when they are unconscious, there is a real mind in there that would be terminated if you were to kill them. A fetus has no established consciousness and the fact that they might develop one in future (though this isn't assured like the pro-forced birth side wants to lie about) is irrelevant to the actual objection being made. I'm so tired of hearing this same insipid refrain from you jokers; you act like you've made some profound point but all you've demonstrated is that you either haven't been listening or have no understanding of what you're being told.

Since the fetus is a human being, it naturally has access to human rights, despite its facilitates not being fully developed.

No human right exists to force another person into medical slavery to prolong your own life. A fetus given full human rights should be extracted from the woman gestating it just as a man forcing a woman to act as a dialysis machine for him should be. Hell, we can even go more literal, because if a real grown human tried to crawl up into a strange woman's vagina against her wishes, you sure wouldn't be arguing that he has a human right to do so.

Does it bother you that literally every argument the pro-forced birth side makes is either a blatantly flawed analogy or a hugely, probably willfully misunderstood strawman of an opposing position?