Persons

I still say the only realistic response to the antis is to demand Abortion on Demand, but here's a logical argument if you insist.

Divine Irony:

Embryos and non-viable fetuses aren’t persons nor do they possess the neurocomplexity to become persons. Abortion is currently a legal option and even if that changes, it will be an option in the mind of any woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. So all you can realistically strive for is the reduction of unwanted pregnancies; that will, in turn, reduce the frequency of abortions. How do you do that? Get behind the problem. Sex education, marriage counseling, counseling for women who are already mothers, more jobs which will get women further from the poverty line, a focus on abuse in relationships and so on. Putting up a quote that has obviously ignored what is meant by person and adding that “abortion is not an option” is useless. As it stands, you’re like 99.9% of prolifers. There’s nothing unique about your approach or your views. However, if you were to choose to get behind the problem by targeting the quality-of-life issues that prompt decisions to get abortions, you’d literally revolutionize what it means to be prolife. Pro-choice, as a label, fits me because I maintain that abortion should be a legal, safe, medical option for women struggling with such decisions. However, I’m not blind to the inherent worth of getting behind the issue and addressing underlying problems. That’s a fresh approach and more importantly, it’s a better way of thinking about this issue.

↵ Originally from hopelessblueeyedromantic

↵ Reblogged from academicatheism