.....
.....
.... Okay. Okay. Um, if ever someone in these forums could succeed - if ever we could have a conversation that is, potentially, life changing, please, if you enjoy humor or fantasy writing at
all, please, for the love of God, or Mithra, or Ice Cream, or whatever your highest value is,
please, go pick up Terry Pratchett.
You don't have to take it from some random dude on a forum - go check out the fan pages, the reviews, but, for reals.
The good opinion of those with whom one disagrees is the hardest to get, and hence the most valued. Thank you.
The point I was trying to make was that we have to distinguish between someone opposing our means, and someone opposing our motives.
In this debate, generally, (you get the population-control eugenicist folks, and, the others side tries to make them representative, but, they aren't) Pro Choice advocates are driven by a motivation that could be roughly summed up as "liberty and autonomy for women". Because, like you, they generally hold the position that:
... they see "protect access to abortion" as a
means of achieving their motive "liberty and autonomy for women".
Pro Life advocates, generally (you get your would-be cranks out there, and, the other side tries to make them representative, but they aren't) are motivated by a sentiment that could be roughly summed up as "protect innocent life".
Because they generally hold the position that unborn children
are children, they see "limit abortion to only that which is necessary to protect innocent life" as a
means of achieving their motive.
It is a very human failing, however, to assume that those who oppose our
means must oppose our
ends. So, some in the Pro Life side will occasionally accuse Pro Choicers of opposing their
motive of "protect innocent life" by accusing them of wanting to kill babies, or being "actually" "pro abortion".
This is bad reasoning, because it projects Pro Life beliefs ("an unborn baby is a human child", "limiting abortion to only that which is necessary protects innocent life") onto Pro Choicers, and it's a bad argument, because it's an ad hominem: "My opponent's arguments about the nature of the embryo/fetus are irrelevant because their motives are bad."
Pro Choicers will often do the same thing: projecting their underlying beliefs ("an embryo is not a child", "protecting access to abortion is how we can protect the liberty and autonomy of women") onto Pro Lifers, and accusing them of the opposite of the Pro Choice
motive ("They want to control women") for pursuing the opposite of the Pro Choice
means ("protect access to abortion").
But, that is just as bad an argument as the "pro killing babies" accusation, and for the same reason. :-/