General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Being pro-life doesn’t make me any less of a lefty [View all]Zalatix
(8,994 posts)because both sides see the opposition as the worst violation of human rights, ever. Pro-choicers see pro-life as advocating slavery for women; pro-lifers see pro-choice as condoning murder. It's hard to imagine getting past that because one's paradise is the other's hell. Frankly I am at a loss to imagine how this issue can be discussed without verbal warfare.
Now I'm not trying to push an ideology. I'm just trying to engage in some straight talk. Put up a stop sign if I get dogmatic, 'k?
What EVERY sensible person on both sides should be able to agree on is that reducing the number of abortions depends on improving the standard of living of women, and making the prevention of pregnancies as effective and easy as possible. We all agree on that, right?
This is what bugs me about groups like Feminists for Life, they're not willing to budge an inch. They appear to oppose the passage of the ACA over abortion, ignoring everything else that meets their stated goals for improving women's lives. I oppose the Individual Mandate, loudly and vehemently, but that wouldn't stop me from voting for the ACA if I were in Congress. On the other hand I can't say anyone should be jumping for joy if the ACA contained some US Supreme Court-approvable restrictions on abortion. There's too much of this letting the perfect be the enemy of the good going on, and both sides have their strong reasons for being ready to do so. In either case the Republicans would have gained had the respective opposition groups realized their goal of nuking the ACA.
What I can say, personally, is if embryos can be grown to infancy, not one should ever be destroyed. Perhaps that means trouble with fertility treatments. I'm going to openly say that you can't profess to know science and say a human embryo is the same as a dog embryo, a cancer cell or mere sperm and eggs. That's just silly. But then you do share my terror at the idea of women dying from illegal abortions, I hope? The problem here is that a woman is involved for 9 long months: as long as that is true, the claws are almost always going to come out. Once a woman doesn't have to be involved, though, it's a whole new game, a whole new argument. Once the issue of a woman's autonomy is no longer necessarily involved, we can revisit the issue of pre-birth personhood without threatening women's freedom. Because of this, I eagerly watch the rapid evolution of medical technology, as it is going to seriously take the hate factor in this debate down a few notches.