A bit meta, but a discussion about topics such as pro choice/life

[Cozarkian]

I was reading an article on Slashdot that is related to the pro choice/life topic, and as usual I read some of the comments.

I don't know about the rest of you, but on a topic like that, my experience is that everyone taking part in such a discussion has already heard pretty much every argument for either/every side of the topic, and so the likelihood of someone who was previously of one opinion to reverse it as a result of the discussion is virtually zero.

So, bearing both of these points in mind, I'm quite surprised that the battle lines get drawn in pretty much the same way every time; ie. people get annoyed with their opponent(s) and people keep trotting out the same old arguments every time.

The only explanation I can think of is that in pretty much every case of such a discussion (at least online), there's always some arsehole who ups the ante with some inflammatory remark and/or an absurd simplification of the opponents' argument(s).

Thoughts?

Because ultimately one's position depends on ethical opinions applied to the science.

The first key question is when does the right to life start - conception, implantation, the first heart beat, viability (and is that with or without medical assistance?), the start of labor, or birth?

Next up is a moral decision about if and when the right of personal autonomy Trump's the right to life. Is it never (making mandatory blood donation constitutional), always, only when there is a risk to the mother, or is there a balancing of factors such as financial ability to provide for the child, or the discovery that you will have a special needs child that will negatively impact the life of your prior children?

Finally, do you waive the right of autonomy as to your child by having sex? What about unprotected sex? What about carrying the child to viability?

Two people can understand the science of pregnancy and still differ drastically on the ethics of abortion.