Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
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.
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.
|
I completely understand what you are saying. However there are some people out there who don't believe in surgery, yet their taxes help fund that. There are also people out there that don't believe in birth control, but there are instances where tax dollars go to that as well. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with everything their taxes pay for but we still give the choice.
To explain why I called Dani pro-choice: Pro-life to me is not agreeing with abortion, AT ALL and thinking that it should be made illegal. If you are against abortion then you are against it, while you may not be out pushing to make abortion illegal you would vote for it to be so if given the chance. If you don't think it should be illegal, if you are personally completely against abortion but recognize that other women are going to and should be able to do what THEY think is right then you are pro-choice.