So I was thinking about our debate on the way home from work last night, and a bit this morning.
I've come up with two reasonable lines of thinking, each from the opposite side of the abortion debate. These are arguments that can't logically be argued with, because they're perfectly logical. And this is why there is such a divide; because both sides have solid arguments.
The pro-choicer:
Yes, a human life begins at conception. But that human life, in its earliest stages of development, has not attained personhood; that is, it does not scientifically have the capacity to experience awareness, pain, feelings, or emotions, which are qualities we assign to actual persons who are granted basic rights. No harm is being done to a human fetus when it is terminated, because it does not possess the ability to experience physical or emotional pain.
^Is the above a statement that pro-choicers can agree with?
The pro-lifer:
Human life begins at conception. There should be no stipulation for granting the most basic rights to any human who has a future. Level of dependency and stage of development should have no bearing on whether a human is granted the right to life. Abortion is a disruption of normal human development. We should not assign rights to humans based on the developmental stage they are currently in. By doing this, we are denying the unborn their futures as fully developed members of the human race.
^Is the above a statement that pro-lifers can agree with?
If these statements are agreed upon, there's not really much of a debate to be had. Neither stance is flat out wrong, as far as I can tell.
Ha! You're really hitting on something and I agree with your points. The pro-choice argument you listed doesn't exactly align with my stance, but it doesn't matter. It isn't the exact contents of the arguments that's important, it's that you are seeing that this discussion will actually never reach a conclusion.
One side comes from a school of thought based on one set of beliefs. The other comes from another school of thought based on another set of beliefs.
We've been arguing about personhood for over 100 years. I think it will take people a lot smarter than any of us to really sort it out.
However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever discuss or debate these topics. We can have eye-opening moments as we learn about each other's opinions and stances and even have our own beliefs altered. I've had my mind changed on tons of opinions as I've gone through life.
On changing opinions; same here. A wise person will always have an open mind. They'll always be looking for someone to prove them wrong, and willing to accept when they're wrong.
Out of curiosity, what specifically do you not agree with in the pro-choice argument I laid out?
Also, does the pro-life argument I laid out make logical sense to you? ---
glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants?