--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think the debate in the States has become *so* polarised that > >> it's difficult to explore nuance. As Dan's caricature of > >> the "pro- > >> choice" position showed. > > > > I must have missed that, but I find it hard to believe that Dan > > was > > more polarized on this issue than I. > > I didn't say he was *more* polarized, just that he showed how the > debate has become so polarized etc. > > Here's his quote: > > "The pro-choice axiom is that, before birth, there are no human > rights, and after birth a full set." > > Which is clearly bollocks. There's a huge range of views across > the spectrum, and this pigeon-holing into "pro-choice" or "pro- > embryo" or whatever tag one chooses is not actually useful. > Actually talking > through differing viewpoints and trying to understand why other > people think as they do, even if you disagree with them, can only > help.
In fairness to Dan, his quote is a pretty accurate description of the current legal regime in the United States, and as such, is also a pretty accurate of the mainstream pro-choice position in the United States. In the US, it is considered heresy to the pro- choice position to propose human rights for children before birth. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
