I'm not sure how true that is, they call themselves pro-life for a reason. Causing the death of two would be inconsistent with the pro-life position. I'm sure a group of people as small and as radical as WBC can be seen pushing that kind of opinion, but when you're taking a significant portion of the population who believe in limitations on abortions, I don't think you could make that kind of generalization. There's still the majority of middle voters who will settle somewhere between no restrictions and making abortions illegal.
I'm citing a specific example that someone has actually said to my face. I'm trying to point out that there are people who believe that. I do not generalize on the general group since there is quite a bunch of variety of what people call "pro life" and what is called pro life is a generalization about the fetus. I don't agree with it but such an extreme is something that does exist, I can tell you the names of the people who have told me that, and it's scary. In fact, there are many people in my general vicinity that hold this opinion.
I know I sound like some crazy abortion happy creeper or something but honestly, women are still gonna have them whether or not people as a whole like it or not.
Honestly you should know better that I don't mean everyone when I say something like that...
When the law permits something, it's telling to people subject by it that it's totally ok; when congressmen legalize abortion, it means that, in that country, aborting is an acceptable behavior. It might succeed in keeping people away from butcher clinics, but it also tells people that, you know, killing a fetus is perfectly fine as long as it's unborn. Of course... There is still the debate on where do life really begins, and that's something science can't determine for sure, but it's easy to see that, as the leading pro-choice argument focuses on freedom for the pregnant, those movements give no damn to the baby, whether it's alive or not, as long as the woman has the right to choose.
This is actually a very naive way of thinking. First off, using the United States as an example, we live in a democratic republic, which means that we elect people to vote on such issues. I in no way believe that we should have laws in Michigan regarding trying to prevent people from having abortions or obscuring education but there are still laws like that. In fact, any state that restricts education on any subject is not cool in my book, but representatives still do it.
Secondly, your statement regarding "pro choicers don't give a damn about the baby" is a nice example of a strawman. Actually one issue that's a big problem in this debate is over simplification of the other side. Pro Life people feel that Pro Choice doesn't care about the baby and Pro Choice doesn't think Pro Life cares about the mother. And there are CERTAINLY people who are in reality on both sides of those extremes (as I have pointed out earlier) but not everyone falls under it. In fact a major argument for pro choice is that the baby cannot be taken care of and will be taken into our inadequate foster care system. Who will take care of an unwanted child?
The big issue I have with the main Pro Life campaign though is the fact that first off, at least politically, it focuses on reducing women's rights in that oftentimes it is coupled with lack of education, "abstinence only education", trying to ban the pill, ect. These all originate from religious and cultural principles that women breed and harbour life, and in addition the political side of this also dislikes actually taking care of that child when they're born. Lack of education and abstinence only education gives women no knowledge on their bodies and how to avoid being pregnant if they have sex (which, when those hormones get running, it's not necessarily easy to stop, especially if you don't understand it). Taking the pill changes your hormones and many times isn't used to harbour sexuality in females but rather to alleviate period or things like that. Second, pro life does not stop abortions, it ends up promoting illegal dangerous abortions by outlawing them. Third, if that child is forced to be brought into a life that doesn't want them, then that can cause a lot of psychological damage to the kid. I know people who were the result of these circumstances and it's very destructive. If they die when they're in the womb, then they will not remember it. It isn't pretty, it isn't nice, but that's what happens. Life isn't pretty. Fourth, if anyone wants to play the religion card, then I ask why the hell God made miscarriages since those are natural abortions.
Also, science does not even address that issue. By a scientific standpoint it's human because it is derived from a human and has the genetics of a human. However, HeLa cells are also derived from a person and also have had the genetics of a human (although they have mutated a bit since they were first taken as a sample) and people do debate whether or not HeLa cells are human as well. The debate over where life begins is mainly a philosophical one.
