Pro Abortion is Pro Non-Contradiction
If you are pro non-contradiction, then there can be no such
thing as the right to violate rights. Therefore, either the
fetuses (alledged) rights supersede the woman's or the
woman's supersedes the fetuses'.
Since
rights
are "conditions of existence required by man's
nature for his proper survival" there is no contest here:
the woman's survival comes first, if she dies the fetus
dies with her therefore the logic is inescapable: the
woman's rights come first.
Anti-Abortion is Anti-rights
Those who are against abortion are ultimately
against rights. There is no other choice here. You
can't say they are simply mistaken or making an error of
judgement. What is it they are mistaken about? What
is their error? They are mistaken about individual
rights and their error is that they are against them, in
principle and in fact.
So anti-abortionists loose "both" ways: even if we elect to skateboard down the slippery slope of allowing --for the sake of discussion-- that fetuses have rights, the law of non-contradiction dictates that the mother's rights supersede those of the fetus. And further, if we make the correct argument that the fetus is not an actual individual but only a potential individual which doesn't acquire rights until it is born and becomes --in the process-- an actual individual, then the anti-abortionist position is twice wrong, doubly wrong, proven wrong.
Therefore, if you are an anti-abortionist and you now insist on maintaining your position you have to do so by doing one or both of the following:
Support a metaphysical position that claims contradictions existand/or
Support the man-made axiom that says rights are not birth-rights but rather a gift from your rulers. (Whether rulers from "heaven" or earth is irrelevant.)*
If you support the former you are not an Aristotelian and for sure not an Objectivist.
If you support the latter you are my enemy and I vow vigilance against you.
(POLITICS/Baby Billboard/continue.../click here)