Mrebo said:
Warbler doesn't care about philosophical distinctions. No offense, Warbler, I think you'd agree the philosophical side of things doesn't hold much relevance to your thinking. You care what happens in practice.
It is true, he really doesn't.
Setting aside the position's loss of principled morality, there is still a question whether there is anything wrong with drawing a different line of convenience.
I don't think there is anything wrong with it, until you try to force that unprincipled morality on the rest of the population. I rest easy knowing there are people who care for and love their unborn children. But I also rest easy knowing that someone has a right not to have to allow their body to go through the changes and trauma of pregnancy for the sake of a future child they didn't intent to conceive, especially when they lack the competency, ability, or desire to rise said child.
If everyone would just mind their own business on matters like this, life would be so much more enjoyable.
What prevents many from giving up is the continued belief that the fetus is a human life (and factually, it is). I think you give a good review of the thinking of both sides, but the compassion of the pro-choice side runs in a single direction, where certain conveniences can only be justified by ignoring that the fetus has any moral value. Otherwise it's like Biden's statement: "Life begins at conception...and I just refuse to impose that on others."
I actually really dislike pro-choice people who don't seem willing to admit that it is a human life, or would rather not admit or acknowledge it, despite the reality that medicine and science tells us it is. That whole line of thinking rubs me the wrong way. I really do think a lot of ignorance surrounds this issue, perhaps on both sides, but more pertinent to the pro-choice side. What you hold inside you is a future person, and very much its own entity with 100% unique DNA, snuffing that out should not be something taken lightly.
ender is right that it's a false dichotomy to say it's murder or nothing. And I also thought he argued his point effectively (and non-boringly).
Just to ensure the record is straight, I never said, "murder or nothing" or anything remotely close to it.