The reason I say one’s beliefs about abortion do not matter is because those beliefs are shaped by factors that the law should ignore. For those that want to pound the table and try to force me to subscribe to their values, I say no thank you.

As an aside, I find the vast vast vast majority of pro life advocates are not racist nor do they want to force their religion on others, they simply care that every baby be given a chance at life. I ran a large women’s health group and most women when they find they are pregnant refer to their “babies” not their fetuses. Only in the abortion world did I hear that term used… women wanted ultrasounds of their baby, not their fetuses…

So I have a harder time understanding how someone can argue that a fetus is not a baby and an abortion is not legalized murder, when it is. The definition of a fetus is an unborn baby. I find many pro choice advocates lie to themselves to make the abortion procedure seem less violent… but it is very violent… many OB/GYNs will not do abortions “on demand”, they go against the core values of most physicians to “preserve life” not take it.

When you have to rationalize babies are not babies, then there is a problem. Why not simply say, pro choice advocates believe a mother has a right to terminate an unborn baby’s life under a broad range of circumstances or without limitation depending on one’s specific position towards abortion. No need to dress it up. Just lay it out there…

Here is a selection of scholarly articles on the emerging conclusion by biologists that life begins at Fertilization.

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

A survey of biologists in 2018 concluded that 81% of biologists supported this view even if they do not agree on the point at which an unborn baby is “worthy of ethical and legal consideration”.

I am not trying to change anyone’s view on abortion, merely making sure we are all talking about the same thing…killing unborn babies for a host of reasons… some may be “very good” reasons… some not so much…

If pro choice people acknowledge unborn babies are human and if pro life people acknowledge that not all human life is defensible then maybe both sides will arrive at a point where they won’t agree but can accept the abortion laws on the books, whatever they become.

Interesting that in Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court applied the same logic as the biologists. And it may in fact be evidence that the same logic is accepted by most Americans. So it keeps turning us back to the pertinent question of when are an unborn baby’s rights worthy of legal consideration. When are rights acquired and how do you resolve conflicting rights?

I do understand where you are coming from. I also understand where pro life advocates are coming from. And I tend to see a lot of selfishness in people’s personal positions (another reasons I do not think we should put to much faith in them). Often people views reflect where they sit more than where they stand.

At a personal level I reject abortions. I think they violate life. But I accept abortions under specific circumstances including when the mother’s or babies life or lives are in danger, the baby is not expected to be able to survive outside the womb ever, or the mother was forced to have non consensual sex. I am also prepared to support women using various “morning after” remedies before the baby experiences pain as something other than a reflexive response (like putting your hand on a hot stove… versus the pain that sets in after that in your brain). These provide women who know they have had sex and do not want a baby to act before the baby experiences thought or pain.

But like most moderates on the issue, I think as soon as the baby begins to experience cognitive function, that baby should accrue its “rights” and its “right to life” should take priority over a woman’s right to privacy. This position plus or minus a few situations is consistent with that of 70% of Americans. The majority oppose both the outright outlawing of abortion or the allowance of abortion on demand in all circumstances. So it seems most Americans have rationalized in a manner similar to me and all we are debating is the “cut-off” date for abortions not covered by a specific exception.

So am I “pro choice” or “pro life” or both. I see myself as both, but leaning towards pro life as the idea of empowering others to terminate life except in the most extreme instances is simply scary. I see beyond abortion and the application of similar logic to things like Hitler’s decision to kill all institutionalized children with serious birth defects (under his logic why incur the expense of these children who would never experience “life” as normal human beings). My mother was born in Germany in 1922, Hitler came to power shortly thereafter and she saw how once the state deprived some groups of their right to life, that eventually those groups expanded to include gypsies and Jews and others… so call me concerned when we regard the taking of life as something other than what it is… or a “fundamental” right of women, men, whites, or African Americans or any other group…

Who gets to decide when the elderly are no longer able to decide for themselves when their lives should be terminated. Today we are debating assisted suicide, tomorrow it will be when should life end? We read about people that “crossed the line” convinced that they had knew better and were acting as “angels of mercy” for me not to worry about any discounting of life. Will an overcrowded society find more ways to justify the taking of life? Life is precious or its not… if it is precious it should be “guarded”… and so “exceptions” should be limited and tightly defined less they creep into more and more areas of human existence…