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.


Oh, and kudos to Rodolfo Scarfalloto, who wrote that in his book The Alchemy of Opposites.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.