Pro-life: Ignorance or Inhuman

I'd like to start off the round by thanking my opponent for his response and for suggesting we go onto this forum to debate this subject after our first encounter on YouTube. I always relish the opportunity to challenge the beliefs and positions held by myself and others. A problem emerges: "I would like to take this opportunity to remind the reader that this isn't a debate on whether abortion should be legal but rather if all people who think it should be illegal are ignorant and/or inhuman. As such Pro's generic arguments for legalized abortion are off-point.” While I partially agree with Con's reminder to the reader that this isn't a debate on whether abortion should be legal per say, I feel that I must correct my opponent's misconception on the actual subject of this debate. This debate is not about the people who hold a pro-life position but about the position itself being either an inhuman or ignorant position to hold. I do think that a person who holds a pro-life position (as defined in the preface) is ignorant in the sense that they are either ill informed or misguided however I do not think they are inhuman as in suffering from some for of psychopathy. In fact I think they may have an over abundance of humanity however misplaced it may be. After reading Con's response it took me a few moments to see why Con's responses were not making much sense as a rebuttal to me because I happen to agree with quite a few of premises he puts forward in his response including his claim that “ The lack of absolute logical consistancy (spelled: consistency) doesn't equate to ignorance. Futhermore, (spelled: Furthermore) emotional attachment doesn't equate to inherent value or worthiness of legal protection. ” I believe I found the issue in rereading my opening arguments and can also see how someone could have taken my position to mean what Con has stated it to be and I'll attempt to address that issue. Addressing the issue: In my opening arguments I stated: "My basic contention is that a person holding a pro-life position (as defined in the preface) is either inhuman - given the logical, philosophical, and real life consequences of holding and/or implementing said position - OR they are simply ignorant of the consequences of holding and/or implementing their position.” I think this is where the issue/misunderstanding came from and it is somewhat understandable. The language I used can be taken as Con has suggested based on the in limited scope of his response about human irrationality due to our emotional nature and the nature of emotion to override our cognitive faculties. However that maxim does not excuse holding an irrational position but rather it requires that we take emotion and prejudice into account when developing rules and laws which will apply to all people - however rational or irrational they may be - so that the rules and laws are not based on emotions or prejudice. Given the facts and arguments that I presented in my case, (which Con has dismissed off hand as virtually irrelevant given the limited scope in which he has interpreted my position) holding a pro-life position (as defined in the preface) did seem to suggest a desire to cause demonstrable harm to a society (i.e. inhuman intent) unless that individual were simply ignorant of the consequences (logical, philosophical, and real life) of his or her position. There is however a third distinct possibility brought to light by Con's response: The possibility that a pro-life advocate is emotionally attached to the notion of the unborn having rights the same as anyone reading these statements and is therefore holding their position for irrational reasons. Con's case: Con seems to suggest that pro-life advocates are simply mere human and not “...cold, logical machines that would save the maximum amount of lives regardless of emotions or societal conditioning.” I agree with him, however taken in the context of the subject, this seems to me to be an “emotional, irrational and prejudice” response to the “cold logical” case for pro-choice I presented in my opening argument. I'm not sure how emotionally cold it is to hold a position that supports a system of laws that promotes the maximum well-being of a society and therefore the highest level of humanity possible. Aside: "Pro's generic arguments for legalized abortion are off-point. So are Pro's railing against my non-existent theological arguments and defense of abstinence-only education. This is made especially ironic by the fact I've clearly labeled myself an atheist on my profile. I would ask Pro to please stay on point.” At the time of writing my opening arguments I did not know Con's religious status seeing as how we only encountered each other a short time ago on YouTube and (to my knowledge) he had not entered his religious status on his profile at the time of my posting. My intent was not to assume my opponent's religious status which is why I used the language I did in saying, “ Sho uld someone site religious grounds against abortion...” The fact that Con would not and will not make religiously motivated arguments on this issue is virtually irrelevant to this debate. Many (dare I say, most) pro-life advocates depend on and/or derive their pro-life stance from religious reasoning. I would be remiss were I not to point out the major religious aspect of the pro-life movement because it only adds to the ignorance and/or the newly added irrational category of a major portion of people who hold a pro-life position. I imagine my opponent (being an atheist) would actually agree with that statement. Conclusion: I believe Con has simply misunderstood my position given the limited scope of his arguments and counterpoints. I eagerly await his reply.