Can anybody help me uderstand the thinking of pro-choicers? (vanity)

[RogueIsland]

This is a serious question. I am posting it because I have come to the conclusion that I quite literally do not have the neural wiring to even conceive of the pro-choice point of view and I need it explained to me. I know many intelligent, otherwise decent people who are passionate about the "right" to abortion. Some of them will even concede that the fetus is a human being and they still favor abortion-on-demand.

I simply can't grasp this. Not all of these people are simply selfish. Some of them seem deeply committed to this on a philosophical level and even a Constitutional level (although the ludicrous Roe aside, how the Constitution can be construed in this fashion is simply beyond me -- at best all you can say is it is silent on the subject of anything but state-sponsored execution).

So what's the deal here? What "nuance" am I missing that these seemingly intelligent people appear to grasp? I can usually at least intellectually understand those I disagree with on political issues -- this one utterly eludes me however.

[P.O.E.]

It's not a reason, it's a convenience. Like all conveniences, they cost. Unfortunately, the price is always paid by the children.

[Skooz]

Saliva contains DNA but I don't consider it 'life'.

Saliva contains the DNA of the life that produced it. DNA is proof of life.

[Bellflower]

If you ever debate a liberal, before asking them about abortion, bring up the death penalty.

They will go into "I'm against it because the chance of one innocent person being executed"

You say: "What about abortion? ALL of those individuals ARE INNOCENT!"

Excellent!

[swilhelm73]

What you're missing in that argument (I didn't claim it was "my" argument) is the fact that it doesn't attempt to tie "viability" to "more/less human" as you do. To say that a fetus is viable is not to say that it is suddenly "human" or "not human". So the fact that medical science is moving the point of viability in no way obligates anyone to conclude that humanity itself is equally variable.

You, or since you don't make this clear, someone claiming the argument you advance is clearly tying the legal definition of humanity to just such an ever changing medical technology.

Or worse yet, your clarification of this argument advocates an even more untenable position - namely that we should recognize that viability has nothing to do with the question at hand of humanity, but still use the 1973 standard of viability as a completely arbitrary basis for us to make our law from.

[swilhelm73]

Strange. One would question why you even bother posting in this thread if not to express your views on the topic.

Perhaps we can see the details of your "plan" on www.Javelina.com?

[Skooz]

Oh, what delusional fringe whackjob website did you copy and paste that easily-refutable drivel from?

You know that not one word of that screed is factual? You do, don't you?

[killjoy]

Saliva contains the DNA of the life that produced it. DNA is proof of life.

Ok. If there is a reproducive clone of a human (the DNA of an ovum has been replaced with the DNA of another human), should that be considered a life? I am curious about your view since it would not contain 'new' DNA. Should it be treated special?

[Bellflower]

Yes. The evidence suggests that banning abortion will harm or kill more people than it will save.

Millions and millions of babies have been brutally slaughtered and their moms, dads and relatives have had to live with the destructive quilt and knowledge of what they did. I have ministered to many who ended up mentally ill who as a teen had an abortion. The human psyche is not set up to accept the murder of ones own children. You think that more will be harmed by abortion being banned then the millions who have been harmed and murdered by it being legal. You say this statement and have backed it up with nothing.

[Skooz]

If there is a reproducive clone of a human (the DNA of an ovum has been replaced with the DNA of another human), should that be considered a life? I am curious about your view since it would not contain 'new' DNA. Should it be treated special?

If it has been fertilized, it will have it's own unique DNA.

[swilhelm73]

I answered your question at some length. As I suggested before, you should read my response.

More to the point, just say what your so far secret solution is. Unless you are merely trolling.

[ARCADIA]

few women would be so deranged as to ram a coathanger into their womb.

Would it be better if they choose to leap off a tall structure, slit their wrist, hang themselves, or overdose on something?

Don't misunderstand me, I think abortions are wrong. But, we would be better advised to work on competitive alternatives, rather then simply tossing half baked legislation at it. Does making it illegal solve anything; or, do we simply want to make ourselves feel better? Perhaps our effort would be better served if we worked on making adoption a better alternative.

[Bellflower]

God Bless you for keeping your children. If you feel comfortable with answering this question, what do you think your life would be like if you had not? Do you think it would have been hard to live with? Don't answer unless you want to.

[killjoy]

If it has been fertilized, it will have it's own unique DNA.

In reproductive cloning, that DNA is removed and replaced. Is the organizism with the replaced DNA alive? Would it be ethical to abort it after it has grown into an embryo?

[swilhelm73]

Calling Captain ZOT