Yeah. I know. And I used to be pretty arrogant about all that too. My position has softened when I came to realize that my position (which is again, pretty close to yours) is basically based entirely on the unproven and the illogical. At that point, I hadda say that I lost most of my arrogance on this particular topic. And I am pretty arrogant, so that took some doin'.
Essentially, almost all of the positions are based on the fallacy of appeal to consequence. As in:
"if abortion is illegal, then we'll have more abused children", which is true, but has no impact on whether or not that's a person in there.
"if a fetus is a person, then they'll have to investigate miscairaiges as possible homicides", which is true, but has no impact on whether or not the zygote is a person.
See what I mean? There's no good solid logic to be had on this topic, only 2 religions locked in a holy war. That's why my preference is to give it to the states, you know, like we were a Republic or something.
no subject
Essentially, almost all of the positions are based on the fallacy of appeal to consequence. As in:
"if abortion is illegal, then we'll have more abused children", which is true, but has no impact on whether or not that's a person in there.
"if a fetus is a person, then they'll have to investigate miscairaiges as possible homicides", which is true, but has no impact on whether or not the zygote is a person.
See what I mean? There's no good solid logic to be had on this topic, only 2 religions locked in a holy war. That's why my preference is to give it to the states, you know, like we were a Republic or something.