This is why I believe your conclusion is slightly off-kilter. You say that “killing beings that no one can deny are people” is easily seen as “wrong” and can thus be legislated against and hold that there is a fuzzy area associated with a fetus for instance. Well the same applies for coma patients and mentally retarded children, but no one but the sickest individuals would say that they are “pro-choice” in killing mentally retarded children.

Fuzzy areas do not necessarily justify respecting differences of opinions. For example, if it turns out that fetuses are “people” with human rights, pro-life people have a 0% chance of killing a “child” with their decision not to abort, whereas pro-choice people may have let's say a 1% chance of killing someone. Or even a 0.1% chance. Or a 10% chance of killing someone…the numbers are arbitrary. Well, how much are you willing to risk on the life of an individual?

Not even the click of an empty chamber justifies putting a gun to someone's head.

That is one reason I told you I liked your Blatant Falsehood Analog Dilemma so much: it made me think more. The reason abortion is such a big deal isn't only because of the “killing” involved (depending upon which side of the fence you sit on), but because of the question: when does a “fetus” become a”person.” Should we allow people to believe blatant falsehoods when, no matter what we say or do, we cannot change the way they think? If everyone in the world agreed that the moment sperm met egg, the being conceived was a person with rights then there would be absolutely no question as to whether or not abortion was killing. However, that is not the case, and there are just as many people who believe that as who do not. Do those who are pro-life have the right to force those who are pro-choice into their manner of thinking by making abortion illegal? I don't believe they do.

I know there are differences of opinion in this world, but there is also right and wrong. Anyone who thinks taking the life of an innocent person is ok is wrong. And this folds back onto the Analog Dilemma I posed last week: How are we to respond to people holding incorrect ideas?

My stance on abortion is simply the way I've always felt about it. Though I do consider a fetus a life, and do consider abortion the killing of said life, I am very aware that not everyone views life in the same way I do. Regardless to whether or not abortion is legal, women are going to have it done. I don't have to like the idea of it to believe that people should still have the right to do it.

(Pardon the rather short and perhaps a tad incoherent response. It's been a long couple of days).

1. It assumes that religion determines morality. I believe the link between morality and religion is often over emphasized. It goes without saying (yet is about to be said) but one does not need religion to be moral. Conversely, even if one is religious, one is not necessarily moral.

2. It assumes that morality determines action. This, too, is not necessarily the case. One can believe abortion to be horrendously wrong and still not do anything to stop it or justify pot use on utilitarian grounds and fail to smoke. These actions (or inactions) are not hypocritical but rather show that morality and action, while correlated, are not at all times causally related.

Though I am interested, how can one be morally against abortion and politically for it? It would seem that what is morally impermissible about abortion is the taking of a life. How can “pro-choice” be anything but “pro-killing” and how can anyone be “pro-killing” without being, likely, non-moral?

This isn't to say I disagree with you, but I am interested.

This is why I believe your conclusion is slightly off-kilter. You say that “killing beings that no one can deny are people” is easily seen as “wrong” and can thus be legislated against and hold that there is a fuzzy area associated with a fetus for instance. Well the same applies for coma patients and mentally retarded children, but no one but the sickest individuals would say that they are “pro-choice” in killing mentally retarded children.

Fuzzy areas do not necessarily justify respecting differences of opinions. For example, if it turns out that fetuses are “people” with human rights, pro-life people have a 0% chance of killing a “child” with their decision not to abort, whereas pro-choice people may have let's say a 1% chance of killing someone. Or even a 0.1% chance. Or a 10% chance of killing someone…the numbers are arbitrary. Well, how much are you willing to risk on the life of an individual?

Not even the click of an empty chamber justifies putting a gun to someone's head.

I know there are differences of opinion in this world, but there is also right and wrong. Anyone who thinks taking the life of an innocent person is ok is wrong. And this folds back onto the Analog Dilemma I posed last week: How are we to respond to people holding incorrect ideas?

My stance on abortion is simply the way I've always felt about it. Though I do consider a fetus a life, and do consider abortion the killing of said life, I am very aware that not everyone views life in the same way I do. Regardless to whether or not abortion is legal, women are going to have it done. I don't have to like the idea of it to believe that people should still have the right to do it.

(Pardon the rather short and perhaps a tad incoherent response. It's been a long couple of days).

1. It assumes that religion determines morality. I believe the link between morality and religion is often over emphasized. It goes without saying (yet is about to be said) but one does not need religion to be moral. Conversely, even if one is religious, one is not necessarily moral.

2. It assumes that morality determines action. This, too, is not necessarily the case. One can believe abortion to be horrendously wrong and still not do anything to stop it or justify pot use on utilitarian grounds and fail to smoke. These actions (or inactions) are not hypocritical but rather show that morality and action, while correlated, are not at all times causally related.

Though I am interested, how can one be morally against abortion and politically for it? It would seem that what is morally impermissible about abortion is the taking of a life. How can “pro-choice” be anything but “pro-killing” and how can anyone be “pro-killing” without being, likely, non-moral?

This isn't to say I disagree with you, but I am interested.