Damn, it's hard to choose between the
freedom to choose and the
right to live, isn't it? They both seem like such
valid arguments. I mean, yeah, you want people to be able to
decide what they want to do with their lives, but you don't want them
killing people in the process. And since it's so
hard to tell if
abortion is actually
killing people or not, we all get
tangled. I'm
nominally a
pro-choice kind of person, simply because I don't like
groups restricting the choices a person can make, no matter what. Then again,
assuming the pro-lifers are
right, I don't exactly endorse
baby-killing either. Actually, I just side with the pro-choice people because
pro-lifers are SUCH assholes.
But I read an
interesting synthesis of these ideas in a
book recently. It said that the
debate itself is
badly worded and
confusing, because the
truth is thusly:
Freedom of Choice is a
good thing only if that
choice holds
life sacred; and the
sacredity of life is a good thing only if that means
respecting the freedom to choose.
Weird.
Oh, and
kudos to
Rodolfo Scarfalloto, who wrote that in his book
The Alchemy of Opposites.