Huh. Been called a lot of things in my life. Jock. Slag. Socialist. Commie. Pig. British Lickspittle. They range all over the map from pretty much true to not even close. Never been called "naive" before, though. That's a new one.
Please don't mistake oversimplification of a statement for effect as being naive. But is it really that? Wouldn't coming to a mutually-agreed upon definition of the point of personhood solve it? If we knew, scientifically and philosophically, that at a specific point in development a fetus became a child, and therefore a person, wouldn't it solve the issue? If the pro-lifers accepted that before a certain point it is not a human, therefore it would not be "murder" to terminate the pregnancy at that point. If the pro-choicers agreed that after a certain point it was a child, then no one would support termination at this point because it would be "murder."
The problem is that this is an emotional, not a scientific, problem. The pro-lifers will inevitably insist that the moment of "personhood" is conception, and the pro-choicers will insist that moment is far, far closer to (if not actually at) physical birth. And neither side will budge because it's not about science or proof or logic, it's about emotion, even on the pro-choice side, not matter how the pro-choicers insist otherwise.
That's the core of what people are calling you naive for (the bolded text). We've all agreed that people with brown or black skin are people, and that doesn't stop Klan meetings from taking place, does it? The most we can really do is bring society forward to the point where people have to grudgingly mumble their idiotic preconceptions (no pun) to themselves.
As for my thoughts on the abortion issue... oh boy. I do not like going there, and actually the topic of this thread is exactly why. See, I really don't
like abortion under most circumstances. In that regard, I guess you could say I lean a bit closer to pro-life than most people on the forum (though maybe I'm just mistaken on that). I believe that under most circumstances, if there aren't life-threatening issues to be dealt with, adoption should ideally be preferable to abortion. I say ideally, because I know damn well that thousands of children go unadopted in today's society, even in the U.S., so I can understand if someone simply wants to abort a baby because they can't take care of one and don't want to contribute to world hunger. It still makes me... uncomfortable. Obviously, the circumstances I'd always be sympathetic to abortion is in the case of rape, incest, accidental pregnancy (attempts to use birth control failed), and teen pregnancy, as I believe teens should be allowed to make mistakes, even huge ones, and live well/long enough to learn from them.
So, that really is the crux of the issue, isn't it? At what point does it become immoral to abort? I don't know the actual answer to this question, and I assume it varies from fetus to fetus, but my theoretical answer is "the moment of consciousness". Meaning: The time at which a fetus gains the ability to, on a primal level, understand that it is alive, and begin the process of learning about its own body on the way to birth. I have no idea if scientists have discovered at exactly what point a fetus "wakes up" (at which point I call it a baby), but I think it's fair to say that, disregarding emergencies, s/he should be left alone to be born, and if the parents decide they don't want it or can't take care of it, adoption is always a possibility. Previous to that point, where they cannot perceive themselves or the world around them, clearly it would not be murder, as it is not yet "alive".
Either way, abortion really does make me uncomfortable though. I realize that's not going to be the most popular opinion around here, but that's the way I feel nonetheless.
