Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
And I am not arguing in this thread that you are morally wrong just that you could not take a pro-choice position not thinking it is okay to sometimes kill one human being for comfort and happiness of another(except of course if you think the unborn are not human beings).
Pro choicers have a hard time swallowing the fact that is fundamental to the position.
It's not.
What you are doing is like if a pacifist were debating a neoconservative and said that it was fundamental to the neoconservative's position that it's permissible to go to war for no particular reason.
In fact, the neoconservative believes that the justifications for the wars he or she advocates are compelling and adequate.
Pro-choicers believe that it is permissible to kill a fetus because the fetus is in a woman's uterus and that the interests in gender equality and bodily autonomy outweigh any claim the fetus has to a right to life. Pro-choicers DO NOT view these justifications as merely matters of "comfort and happiness", but rather think they are far more compelling than that.
You don't get to take someone's argument, belittle the reasons that they find compelling for something, and then say that the acceptance of the belittled reasons as sufficient is "fudamental" to their position. It doesn't work that way.