I am also on another board, which is mostly comprised of very right wing Christian conservatives. As you can imagine, they're jumping for joy at the prospect of this court ruling, using florid language such as 'the horror of abortion' etc.
However, I've been a member there (and here, actually) for years (since Bush Jnrs first year), so know for a fact that this debate has come up numerous times, so all the posters there should know all the arguments on both sides of the aisle back to front. Recently, I keep on seeing the same simplistic 'arguments' put forward, which I suppose work when preaching to the choir, but make no sense from a pro-choice perspective - the people they're trying to argue against.
What I've found out, is that despite literal years of experience, none of them can actually articulate the pro-choice argument in a full and dispassionate way. I can do so very easily for their position, despite disagreeing with it.
A longer form version of the pro-life position would be:
- The terms human life and human being are essentially synonymous. They mean an alive, genetically distinct human organism.
- Human life is of value and worth protecting in almost all circumstances.
- Human life by the above definition begins at conception.
- Left alone, an embryo in the womb will develop into a baby, and is just a human life at early stages of development, morally equal to a human life any any other stage of development.
- There is no real moral difference between a zygote, embryo, early foetus, late foetus, new-born, toddler, adolescent, adult, pensioner.
- Therefore it is equally morally abhorrent to abort/kill an embryo as it would be to kill a toddler.
- Spontaneous abortion or miscarriage is just nature and doesn't count.
- Because we know that there is a non-zero chance of pregnancy occurring due to sex - regardless of any protection used - by deciding to have sex, the woman opts into accepting that a pregnancy is possible, and therefore she is morally required to carry it to term, regardless of any cost to herself.
- Most often, the discussion revolves around single women having sex. The situations of women in stable long term relationships including marriage not wanting to become pregnant don't often come up in examples given for the above point, but the argument remains the same regardless - she opted to have sex, so is morally required to carry it to term.
- The risks, both mental and physical of pregnancy largely aren't discussed unless pushed in discussion, but in any case is a 'lesser evil' than deciding to abort.
- There are often exceptions made for pregnancies at major risk to the woman (where it could result in death, 'regular' risks during pregnancy don't count), and often but not always exceptions are made for rape and incest, though this varies depending on the individual.
- Once the baby is born, if the woman does not want it, she can give it up for adoption. Details on this process are largely vague. State provided assistance to women and unwanted children are largely frowned upon, but again this varies by individual.
- Positions on war, death penalty, police shootings, etc. etc. vary by individual, though a distinction is often made with zygotes to foetuses that they are 'innocent', so different to other killings of human beings which they might find acceptable.
Can any of them do the same for the pro-choice position, without misrepresenting it or being otherwise deliberately obtuse? Apparently not. After years of discussing it, they learned nothing, so keep resorting to strawmen and basic kindergarten arguments. It's depressing, really.
