2. "Native American culture mandates that if you kill it, you must eat it. Therefore abortion should be forbidden." BAD LOGIC, because the second sentence does not necessarily follow from the first, which by itself is a variant of the preceding anti-abortion argument, and seems true enough:
knowledgesutra.com/discuss/tllit-eating-meat-morally-correct
Different cultures have different moral standards, of course, and even for Native Americans, that rule can't really apply all the time, because when someone kills a tree for firewood or lumber, there is no intention of eating it.
Meanwhile, it is well documented that in New Guinea, various tribal cultures practiced cannibalism, and human flesh was known as "long pig" (because it is claimed to taste like pork).
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Long%2Bpig
It is also known that certain animals, like cats, will after giving birth normally eat the afterbirth, which happens to be rich in protein and iron.
cats.blurtit.com/q454287
Then there is an uncommon sexual fetish known as "vorarephilia", which is associated with (typically imaginary) cannibalism:
healthinfo21.com/2010/11/5-paraphilias-andor-sexual-fetishes
Logically, there appears to be nothing but cultural mores to prevent living humans from eating aborted humans, in alignment with Native American culture. On the other hand, most modern Americans (and peoples of other nations) follow different cultural rules than the Native Americans, such that there is no generic requirement to eat something just because it was killed. For example, flies and mosquitoes may be edible, and they are often killed by humans, but....
Anyway, because the logic doesn't work, this argument against abortion fails.
3. "There is such a thing as a 'right to life', and unborn humans have it." There are two parts to that argument, of which the first fails due to BAD DATA, and the second fails in part because it requires the first to exist.
The notion of "right to life" is a human construct; it does not exist in Nature, as any observer can easily find plenty of life-forms failing to notice any such thing as a "right to life" when they kill and eat other life-forms.
On the other hand, Nature does offer an origin for the notion of a right to life. It is observed that when two members of the same species fight each other, say for a piece of food, or territory or mates, very often this fight is not carried out "to the death". One will usually concede to the other, and that other allows the loser to leave the scene, alive.
There is Evolutionary value in that, because it quite simply and directly reduces the overall death rate of members of that species, and thereby enhances the long-term survival of that species. Note, however, that when two members of different species fight for territory (because they directly compete for the same resources in that territory), this fight will almost always be fatal for one of them. An observer can see in this paragraph an origin for "prejudice".
Humans, by inventing the notion of a right to life, have simply formalized that Natural prejudice of each species, for itself over other species. It is a very useful formalization, because it helps humans to get along with each other. Humans have invented so many ways of making it easy to kill other things, including each other, that, by simply accepting a formalized prejudice, we can better cooperate to do wonderful things, instead of constantly worrying about whether or not one is about to be literally stabbed in the back.
Carefully note that Nature does not recognize humanity's formalized prejudice for itself, its claim of a right to life. Floods and hurricanes and quakes (and so on) routinely kill thousands of humans every year. The notion of a right to life is a convenient tool that humans find useful, and nothing more than that.
Next, because "right to life" is what it is, formalized prejudice, it also can be "taken too far" --a little prejudice might be a good thing, but too much prejudice is a bad thing (too much of any good thing is always a bad thing).
One result of humans taking right-to-life-for-themselves too far is the current global population explosion. The word "biomass" is now relevant. In general, the total amount of biomass on Planet Earth is relatively constant. Logically, this means that the more biomass that becomes dedicated as human bodies (and as certain other life-forms needed to feed human bodies), the less biomass there can be for all the remaining life-forms on the planet. As a result, many life-forms have already become extinct, and many others are threatened with extinction, because prejudiced humans grabbed --and are still grabbing-- more and more of the world's limited biomass for themselves and their food sources (and for other things like wooden buildings).
pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04
Logically, to the extent that humans think that other life-forms should have some degree of "right to life", that is the extent to which humanity's formalized prejudice for itself needs to be restricted. But, in turn, that implies that not all humans should automatically have a full right to life --or perhaps not have any right to life! Any volunteers?
Besides a few suicides, of course not. Well then, there is the legal system, which can specifically remove "right to life" from certain humans, most frequently whenever someone is given a death penalty. In the USA and various other nations, that legal system has also found reason to deny right-to-life to unborn humans. Sure, there are many who oppose that denial. But to base that denial on the mere claim that unborn humans automatically have a right to life, that denial is logically flawed, based on bad data.
4. "Human life is special." IRRELEVANT, because the Earth is full of organisms as unique in their own way as humans. None are inherently more special than any other. And millions upon millions of species have become extinct over the ages. The Neanderthals may have thought they were special, too, but where are they now? And why do so many "special" humans get killed by purely Natural events every year? It is sheer selfish prejudiced egotism for humans to think they are special, and absolutely nothing more than that.
knowledgesutra.com/discuss/tllit-eating-meat-morally-correct
Different cultures have different moral standards, of course, and even for Native Americans, that rule can't really apply all the time, because when someone kills a tree for firewood or lumber, there is no intention of eating it.
Meanwhile, it is well documented that in New Guinea, various tribal cultures practiced cannibalism, and human flesh was known as "long pig" (because it is claimed to taste like pork).
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Long%2Bpig
It is also known that certain animals, like cats, will after giving birth normally eat the afterbirth, which happens to be rich in protein and iron.
cats.blurtit.com/q454287
Then there is an uncommon sexual fetish known as "vorarephilia", which is associated with (typically imaginary) cannibalism:
healthinfo21.com/2010/11/5-paraphilias-andor-sexual-fetishes
Logically, there appears to be nothing but cultural mores to prevent living humans from eating aborted humans, in alignment with Native American culture. On the other hand, most modern Americans (and peoples of other nations) follow different cultural rules than the Native Americans, such that there is no generic requirement to eat something just because it was killed. For example, flies and mosquitoes may be edible, and they are often killed by humans, but....
Anyway, because the logic doesn't work, this argument against abortion fails.
3. "There is such a thing as a 'right to life', and unborn humans have it." There are two parts to that argument, of which the first fails due to BAD DATA, and the second fails in part because it requires the first to exist.
The notion of "right to life" is a human construct; it does not exist in Nature, as any observer can easily find plenty of life-forms failing to notice any such thing as a "right to life" when they kill and eat other life-forms.
On the other hand, Nature does offer an origin for the notion of a right to life. It is observed that when two members of the same species fight each other, say for a piece of food, or territory or mates, very often this fight is not carried out "to the death". One will usually concede to the other, and that other allows the loser to leave the scene, alive.
There is Evolutionary value in that, because it quite simply and directly reduces the overall death rate of members of that species, and thereby enhances the long-term survival of that species. Note, however, that when two members of different species fight for territory (because they directly compete for the same resources in that territory), this fight will almost always be fatal for one of them. An observer can see in this paragraph an origin for "prejudice".
Humans, by inventing the notion of a right to life, have simply formalized that Natural prejudice of each species, for itself over other species. It is a very useful formalization, because it helps humans to get along with each other. Humans have invented so many ways of making it easy to kill other things, including each other, that, by simply accepting a formalized prejudice, we can better cooperate to do wonderful things, instead of constantly worrying about whether or not one is about to be literally stabbed in the back.
Carefully note that Nature does not recognize humanity's formalized prejudice for itself, its claim of a right to life. Floods and hurricanes and quakes (and so on) routinely kill thousands of humans every year. The notion of a right to life is a convenient tool that humans find useful, and nothing more than that.
Next, because "right to life" is what it is, formalized prejudice, it also can be "taken too far" --a little prejudice might be a good thing, but too much prejudice is a bad thing (too much of any good thing is always a bad thing).
One result of humans taking right-to-life-for-themselves too far is the current global population explosion. The word "biomass" is now relevant. In general, the total amount of biomass on Planet Earth is relatively constant. Logically, this means that the more biomass that becomes dedicated as human bodies (and as certain other life-forms needed to feed human bodies), the less biomass there can be for all the remaining life-forms on the planet. As a result, many life-forms have already become extinct, and many others are threatened with extinction, because prejudiced humans grabbed --and are still grabbing-- more and more of the world's limited biomass for themselves and their food sources (and for other things like wooden buildings).
pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04
Logically, to the extent that humans think that other life-forms should have some degree of "right to life", that is the extent to which humanity's formalized prejudice for itself needs to be restricted. But, in turn, that implies that not all humans should automatically have a full right to life --or perhaps not have any right to life! Any volunteers?
Besides a few suicides, of course not. Well then, there is the legal system, which can specifically remove "right to life" from certain humans, most frequently whenever someone is given a death penalty. In the USA and various other nations, that legal system has also found reason to deny right-to-life to unborn humans. Sure, there are many who oppose that denial. But to base that denial on the mere claim that unborn humans automatically have a right to life, that denial is logically flawed, based on bad data.
4. "Human life is special." IRRELEVANT, because the Earth is full of organisms as unique in their own way as humans. None are inherently more special than any other. And millions upon millions of species have become extinct over the ages. The Neanderthals may have thought they were special, too, but where are they now? And why do so many "special" humans get killed by purely Natural events every year? It is sheer selfish prejudiced egotism for humans to think they are special, and absolutely nothing more than that.