What I would give for this subject to be stickied and black-listed so we don't have to go through this every few months or so. We really have done this topic to death and a lot of this is just turning over old ground again - just as it was the last few times. As such, I'm going to repeat what I said last time, which is that the labels of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are in themselves illogical straw men - no one aside from the most dedicated troll is going to set themselves up as being "anti-choice" or "anti-life" which are the true opposites to both these positions. The sooner we throw these labels in the garbage, where they belong, the happier we'll all be I reckon. Or at the very least, we'll have got the debate back onto the actual topic of "abortion, yay or nay?"
Incidentally, there is a fairly specific definition of a living organism in biology, and by that definition life begins at fertilisation when cell division via mitosis commences. Hence, an embryo is alive from a scientific perspective and claims that it is not are with respect bogus. Whether it is a person or not is the true nub of the debate, and that is an ethical/legal problem rather than a medical one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigmole
So incredibly and unbelievably pro-choice. As pro-choice as a person can be. And I mean no offense because I do not know you, but I am not a fan of the pro-life stance at all. I find it incredibly self centered to think that every woman should line by your own personal, not backed up with facts, beliefs.
|
There's a slight flaw in this logic, which hopefully I can illustrate below:
You believe abortion should be a universally available right to all pregnant women. Fine - that's your prerogative. Myself and others do not agree with that position - that is our prerogative. However, in order for your position to be implemented, the state has to make provision for - and in a lot of cases fund - provision of abortion services, via taxpayer money. Even if a large percentage of the population does not agree with abortion, therefore, you are in effect demanding they foot the cost of implementing your beliefs. On a more personal level, as a taxpayer I am funding the provision of abortion services even though in a number of instances I do not agree with them. Where, therefore, is my choice? How is that not imposition of your beliefs upon others? Your belief that abortion should be a universal right is based on no greater level of empirical fact than mine, yet my objection is trampled over by default. That sounds less like pro-choice and more like pro-my-point-of-view, if you take choice in the strictest sense of the word.
I don't intend this to sound like a personal attack, I add in haste - it's more that the logic for me doesn't work. Both pro-choice and pro-life positions entail, in one way or another, the imposition of their beliefs upon wider society in one form or another.