I think some people on the pro choice side similarly are unwilling to see the opposing argument as one that can be held in good faith, and would, in fact, class Amanda among those. One counterpart for the "they must agree about personhood, really, and thus just think babies can be killed for convenience" position is "they must agree with me about the extent of coerciveness that is required to enforce pregnancy, and thus really be focused on control or sexism."
Yes, there are disagreements that people of good faith can have with regard to abortion. But I would have to class myself with Amanda among the people who don't take most pro-life arguments seriously. This is the sort of thing you don't want to say on message boards dedicated to political debate, but I think that the position I made clear in my last post -- that the fetus's rights increase with its development but never trump those of the mother -- is the only reasonable position. The position of the personhood amendment simply can't be taken seriously, both because they can't decide what "conception" means and why this is the beginning of life, and because they end up equating zygotes and blastocysts with newborn babies, despite the fact that they are just obviously more comparable to the contents of a tampon than a baby. The pseudo-intellectual justification for this is that they have the potential to become babies. This impresses people who are impressed by this kind of thing, but it's silly for the reasons Zeke talked about somewhere else in this thread. This argument reminds me of the Robert George argument against gay marriage, not just because it's so Catholic, but because it's not the reason anyone is actually against abortion. People are against gay marriage because they think it's icky and it offends their sense of propriety. The pro-life movement is against abortion not because they truly believe that embryos have the moral worth of newborn babies, but because they don't like sex, at least when it's not under the specific circumstances described by them.
How else can you explain the outrage of nearly everybody in this movement at the HHS decision to list birth control as preventive care requiring no co-pay? How else can you explain the "rape and incest" exception? How else can you explain the befuddlement
, and also the condescension, about how women who get illegal abortions should be punished if abortion were illegal? How else can you explain the support for abstinence-only sex education no matter how many times it's proven useless, for purity pledges, and for generally denying the fact that the vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage?
They don't like abortion because they subscribe to an arbitrary kind of morality which says that putting your wing-wong in a willing partner's hoo-ha is immoral if you're not married to her, and that denying yourself a fun time by putting a wing-wong in your hoo-ha is a godly and moral act, because sex is not for fun times, it's only for making babies, so if you've had sex, you must have that baby. How do you have a real, good-faith argument with that if you don't share their sectarian assumptions?
edited because I screwed up the quote