Abortion should be outlawed, and being "pro-choice" is equivalent to being "pro-abortion."

MikeGarcia, you have brought up some interesting questions about the definition of life and its context within the abortion debate. Let us first look to the arguments of Judith Jarvis Thompson, professor of philosophy at MIT, to further flesh out this debate. For all intents and purposes, I am assuming that "life" in the purely scientific context exists at the moment of conception. There are other ways to define life, which I will address later if given enough space. Thompson sets up an analogy to explain her pro-choice argument, which I shall paraphrase: imagine that you went to bed one night, and woke up in a hospital with your body hooked up to the body of a violinist. Say the violinist is famous, but the fact of the matter is that you are keeping this person alive--if he is unplugged, he will die. The doctors say that you only have to give up nine months of your life and then the violinist would be okay. Do you then forfeit your rights to do with your body what you will to protect the right to life of this violinist? He is, after all, a person, and all persons deserve a right to life. What if it were nine years, questions Thompson? What if it were your whole life? Would you elect to leave the violinist hooked up to you for the rest of your natural life? The important thing to remember is that you were kidnapped and erroneously chosen for this task of keeping the violinist alive (you woke up attached to him, after all--this is meant to be analogous to rape, as Thompson specifically supports abortion in that instance. She goes on to explain how abortion could be ethically warranted in other instances, but I will focus on rape for this round). Would you yield your right to do with your body as you wished for nine months to save this person who is a stranger to you? If you maintain that the right to life is more important than the right to one's body, then perhaps you would allow the violinist to use your body. Of course, life would have to have value in order to be perceived as more important than the right to one's body. What gives the life of a fetus value? What gives life in general value? One generally defines the value of life by the experiences of the being. What experience does a fetus have? This is where the debate tends to get muddy, as defining "life" is much more complex than simply defining the activities of cells. This, of course, brings to mind the question of the value of a mother's life. Does her life have more value than the life of a fetus? Is it equal? Imagine a scenario wherein carrying a pregnancy to term would endanger the mother's life. Either she can abort the fetus and stay alive, or carry the pregnancy to term and die in the process. Should the mother have a choice? Does the life of her fetus have more value than her own life? We can liken this to the violinist situation--the stress of supporting two bodies is placing strain on your kidneys and immune system, and you will be dead within a month, but you must continue to provide support. You have no choice. Thompson's point here is that the right to life argument is not without it's issues--i.e., it is not a black and white ordeal. Having the right to life does not necessarily mean that you have the right to use someone else's body to promote and protect said right to life. The right to life is, as she puts it, a right to not be killed unjustly. You would not be unjust in unplugging the violinist, but you'd be terribly nice if you did not. (Since you placed the burden on me as the pro-choice advocate to also be pro-abortion, if you support abortion in this instance as an option, you must also label yourself as pro-choice, as you are not condemning abortion.) You may find it trivial that I used Thompson's analogy of a violinist being plugged into one's body to sum up the issues surrounding the right to life in the abortion debate, but it is perhaps the easiest way to understand the right to choice side. Being pro-choice does not necessarily mean that I advocate all forms of abortion, which is why I have chosen to focus on abortion in the case of rape or medical necessity (as Thompson did). Your case was to outlaw ALL forms of abortion in all instances (in other words, your burden of proof, by your own phrasing, is much larger than mine. I simply have to prove that at least one form of abortion is just, whereas you have to prove that all forms of abortion are unjust). This does not allow for thoughtful consideration of the other side, which is the side of the mother. It isn't about arguing with science, because in order to claim that abortion is wrong because a fetus is a living thing, you would have to give life some value, pushing this debate into the realm of ethics. Certainly you can use science to define the terms of debate, but the debate you proposed was entirely ethical, therefore we must debate on ethical grounds. I fully understand that abortions due to rape account for a very small percentage of abortions, but shouldn't these women have access to a safe procedure that allows them to protect their rights? If you argue that they should not, then you must give reasoning as to why the mother's right to her body (and, ultimately, right to life) is of less value than the fetus' right to life. Should we hold a woman responsible to carry a baby to term if it is the offspring of a violent sexual act, or if it will endanger her life? What about the time, lost wages, and emotional issues that are tied in with carrying an unwarranted pregnancy to term? Are these less valuable than the right to life of the unborn? The cost of pregnancy is great to the mother, and there is very little that she can do to recoup the cost, especially in the case of rape. Suing for monetary damages will not fix the emotional damage that has occurred, and it is not simply and easy fix to give the unwanted child to an adoption agency. Will the value of this child's life be enough to make up for the way in which the mother's life was devalued? That is not easy to calculate. Ultimately, the right to life of a fetus does not trump the right to life/right to one's body of a mother, especially in the case of rape or pregnancy wherein the mother's life is in danger. In BOTH instances, the mother has a CHOICE--to carry the pregnancy to term, or to seek an abortion. I do not applaud or condemn the mother for the choice she makes one way or the other, I simply applaud the system that enables her to make the choice.