Quote:
Originally posted by robustpuppy
I don't know how people can even stand to have this argument. More so than any other political debate (and it's a crying shame that this issue is so central to American politics), you can never change anyone's mind on it, each side finds the other's viewpoint offensive because the rights on the other side are considered so fundamental, and any compromise point (such as "on demand" versus "when health is at risk")* is utterly arbitrary. It's just exhausting even to witness this debate, let alone to contemplate how it has shaped (or grossly distorted) American political life.
(*Although I will throw in here that this line seems impossible to draw if you concede -- and not everyone does -- that the health risks to women who seek to terminate pregnancies when on demand abortion is not available are relevant.)**
** (Just doing this made me tired.)
|
Interestingly I agree with some of the above and it is in fact the position I came to and posited back when Reagan was president and it really was morning in America. Also, interestingly, I was pro-choice based on my libertarianism. All of this remained solid until my mind started to change in the late 90s (this is where I diverge with the above, minds can change).
Nothing about my shift has anything to do with (1) politics or (2) religion. Just my thoughts about life and when a fetus/pre-birth infant gets basic rights. I wouldn't make this a litmus test (unlike my anti-tax litmus test) for voting nor would I make it a litmus test for or against a judicial nomination.
