I have to say that though I usually quietly lurk in the background, I quite appreciate your presence in here.

I wanted also to second what Dan said – I’m a high school teacher and have numerous opportunities to discuss abortion (among other things). I’m surprised at how often pro-choice students get their basic science not just mildly wrong, but astronomically wrong. It’s as though they start with their pro-choice position (perhaps often from their parents and/or friends, I’m guessing), and then twist everything else to accomodate that, including the facts. I’m reminded of a quote (which I don’t think I can render correctly, nor can I attribute it properly), something along the lines of, “Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts”. The failure to (publicly) admit the biological facts is one of the primary things making the pro-choice position seem rational – I’m convinced that if movement pro-choicers actually publicly recognize the science of it all, they’ll come off sounding extremely looney to the public at large.

You are right that logic alone cannot determine morality. However, people of the pro-choice persuasion frequently get the science wrong, following which it is impossible for them to arrive at a logically consistent moral philosophy. If we first get the science right (eg. so that we are clear about what kind of entity we are talking about when we discuss human embryos), then we can actually have genuine philosophical differences regarding what moral respect, if any, a human embryo deserves. At that point it becomes clear that the pro-choice position involves a utilitarian view of human life. However, few people, even among those of the pro-choice persuasion, actually have the stomach to accept all of its logical conclusions. Professor Peter Singer from Princeton University is one notable exception. His moral philosophy illustrates very clearly what those logical conclusions are. He advocates infanticide, among other things.

Gotta love that one Abigail!

“BUT THEN, I think, how much more depressing to be pro-choice–without logic or science on your side, ”

But pro-choicers like myself believe we have logic and science on our side, as as much as you do. We just differ over exactly which arguments grounded in logic and science should win, as matters of morality are not firmly grounded in either and so allow for much debate.