Several years ago, I added a standard to my posting style. If somebody just kept coming back at me, I'd ask myself "are you saying anything new or different, or are you just repeating yourself. Because they already heard/read that. If you can't add or improve, then be the bigger person and walk away."
how incredibly noble of you.
the facts are simple, betty (btw, my uncle for whom I am named used to draw that character);
the abortion debate has changed almost not at all since roe v wade.
opponents oppose it because it is sinful. overwhelmingly, opposition to abortion is religion based. many other arguments are made, but they are generally offered in order to place religion on equal footing with science ala 'creationism'.
the best argument the opposition has made is that SCOTUS essentially invented a right to privacy in RvW. they are right. personally, i thank them for it, but that it is not a 'straight line' reading of the Constitution seems true to me.
i will forgo editorializing.
underlying the pro-choice stance is the role of women in our economic-socio-political life. burdened with the responsibilty to have children or forsake either having sex or an active role in how our culture operates... well, the answer is pretty simple. the old chant that 'biology is not destiny' is only true if we refuse to let it be. again, there are lots and lots of corresponding arguments, but the reason that abortion is favored by most americans and overwhelminly by women is that it provides them a personal freedom comparable with men.
their fundamental argument is that a fetus is not a biological sovereign entity - is not an life separate from its mother. that argument holds up incredibly well.
and it is not true that no one ever changes their minds. i have had to do so on many positions. the 2nd amendment, for instance, clearly allows individual citizens to carry weapons. the 'well regulated militia' argument its opponents love (and that I used to recite) is exactly as the gun nuts say... baloney. it is very clear that the writers meant a militia no better regulated than those that fought along side Washingtons 'regulars'... hardly 'regulated' at all. that does not negate the fed and or state gov from regulating weapons, but it DOES keep them from restricting the right to keep them.
so.... we go on arguing it and arguing it because we wanna WIN! the arguments don't change. but, if I let YOU argue and stay silent, i stand to LOSE.... and i don't wanna.
yeah, it is as simple as that.
geo.