Ammunition > Heroics

I was thinking about this this morning. I'm not really sure why.

It seems like every debate regarding abortion is centered around a difference of opinion about whether an unborn child is actually alive, or about the point it actually "becomes alive", and where that is. This, to me, is pointless. When you want to have an intelligent debate, you can't just be throwing opposing opinions back and forth, because you'll never get anywhere:
"I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU! [insert opinions]"
"I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU! [insert differing opinions]"
In some slightly more intelligent cases, these opinions will be reinforced by facts. The other party will typically then either dispute the validity of these facts or acknowledge them and interpret them in a completely different way. Again, this... really doesn't result in any sort of progress. Occasionally one party will eventually develop the ability to see things from the other party's point of view. That's progress. But it isn't that progressive because both people still don't respect each other; "I see where you're coming from, but it's stupid."
It makes more sense to start with an opinion both parties share (such as "death is bad") and go from there. So that's what I'm going to do here:
Children that have been born are alive.
That's more or less universally agreed upon, right? So instead of arguing like this:
"It's just a bunch of cells!"
"No, it's alive!"
"It most certainly is not."
"But look at the DNA, and how everything is already arranged for it to be a living human."
"But it isn't yet! Will be isn't the same as is!"
...I would like to present something different.
I will assume that we agree that babies are alive, that they are people, and that people's lives are valuable. If this is true, shouldn't their lives be protected at every opportunity? Shouldn't the potential for life be preserved at every opportunity? Removing the potential for something isn't as different from removing the thing itself as you might think. Here I may have to resort to a terrible analogy:
If you had the greatest job in the world and were laid off for no good reason, you would naturally be pretty angry. But what if you had applied for the job, and you were very qualified? And they set up an interview, assuring you it was only a formality; there would be no question as to whether you would get the job. And then suddenly they changed their minds and canceled the interview. Wouldn't that make you equally angry? Or at least very nearly as angry.
The arguments for abortion that I've heard:
"It's my body."
No it's not. If you don't agree that that child is a living individual with rights, you can at least agree that (s)he will soon become one. You have no right to prevent that from happening. That child, even when "it's just a bunch of cells", does not belong to you, because no human ever has the right to claim ownership over another. And don't tell me that "it's not a human yet". Humanity isn't something you earn or achieve. It's inherent. It would be ridiculous to argue that point, because as soon as people are "allowed" to make judgments about who is and is not human, they can start saying things like "black people aren't human". And we've done that before. It was stupid then and it would be even more stupid now. It's excluding people on the basis of your own perception, which is exactly what is happening now with unborn children. And they're incapable of defending themselves. What, you like hitting people who can't hit back? That's weak and it's sick.
"You don't know what it's like."
You're right, I don't. But regardless of what your situation is, once you've been given the awesome responsibility of bringing a human being into the world (regardless of whether it was your choice), you can't back out. It's easy for me to say that because I will never have that responsibility. But that's no reason to attack me and call it a valid argument. Because anybody can see the worth of human life. And that worth is based largely upon potential: Look what that person could become. So if you continue to insist that there is a "pre-human" or "pre-living" point, there's still no sense in cutting off that potential.
"I won't be able to take care of a kid."
That's not the issue right now. There are a lot of people out there who want to help, and your worries or concerns are pitiful reasons for killing someone. I define killing as getting rid of a life. Like I keep saying, if you abort an unborn child, that's one more person that will never be. There is no difference.
"I don't want to bring a child into this world."
Do you want to end humanity or something? Well, that's too bad, because it's not your choice to make. Your refusal to "bring a child into the world" will have no bearing on how many other children are going to be brought into this world. Your own desires and wishes are, again, pathetic reasons for causing death.

Stop kidding yourself, "pro choice" people. You're just making up shoddy excuses for your own vile behavior.