For providing quotes from embryology textbooks and defending the scientific reality that at conception a human life has begun at Media Girl's blog, I've been accused of being a "serial troll" and imposing my religious beliefs on everyone else, my blog has been called a "pseudo religio slobber dump site", and Serge and myself have been called "fundie wackjobs from Focus on the Family."
Why is that some pro-choicers when faced with scientific facts from scientific textbooks must accuse those providing evidence from science of being "fundie wackjobs?" Why is that my belief backed by quotes from experts in embryology is one of faith yet their belief (that the unborn aren't human beings in the biological sense) which is backed by nothing but their pro-choice ideology is somehow valid?
Do people actually believe that we become human beings when "the mother decides the fetus in her body is a human being and she wants a baby and she accepts reponsibility for its care."
To blatantly plagiarize from a Norman Geisler book: I'd don't have enough faith to be pro-choice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hm. At the risk of getting flamed, I’ll stick my nose into this. First, I concur, abrasive rhetoric is not conducive to either agenda. I think it sad that you have been verbally assaulted in other forums while expressing your opinions. I enjoy and respect the fact you seem to be addressing the issue from a perspective of science, at least in your blog entries I have read so far. In fairness though, I have seen a lot of polite pro-choicers ripped to shreds as well by less-than-cordial pro-lifers.
ReplyDeleteTo address, your statement, though: “Why is that my belief backed by quotes from experts in embryology is one of faith yet their belief (that the unborn aren't human beings in the biological sense) which is backed by nothing but their pro-choice ideology is somehow valid?” Well, looking (somewhat) from the outside in to the abortion debate (I consider myself open minded, but have a tentative opinion), I think it a little unfair to state that pro-choice ideology is backed by “nothing”. I know you disagree, but, c’mon…
You do raise an interesting tangential point, I think, if I read just a tad between your lines. Do you mind if I ask whether you developed your opinion based on the evidence you present, or if you are refuting a pre-existing belief (from philosophy, religion, whatever)? I don’t mean to imply anything derogatory here… I’m sincerely curious if you initially approached the issue tabula rasa as it were and developed an opinion from the evidence. I ask because I have spoken to a large of number of pro-choice advocates who (at least tell me) that that is how they arrived at their opinion, but most pro-lifers approach the issue from a faith-based perspective first. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there is anything wrong per se with the latter approach… I’m genuinely curious. And likewise, don’t misunderstand me, I have talked to many pro-choicers who likewise come to the research stage of the debate their minds already made up. It just seems there is a strong imbalance in the ratios…
As I have said, I consider myself something of a “neutral” party… or at least an open-minded one, and my opinion has changed over time as I have done more (amateur, admittedly, I admit very humbly) research on the topic and the science behind it. I find it interesting that I find a fair number of people of faith and agnostic/athietsts as well who claim to have come to a pro-choice perspective from scientific research as well, but those that are pro-life have done so for overwhelmingly religious reasons. (Which is odd, as I find the Bible very quiet on the issue, but that’s another tangent…)
Yes, I know this is a horribly anecdotal and generalized observation I’m making here; please do not take offense. I would never claim my cursory observations mean anything statistically, which is why I pose the question, out of curiosity more than anything. Just wondering. OK, flame away…