Whether you agree with Richard Dawkins or not, I think he articulates really well the root source of disagreement between people who see and portray themselves

Whether you agree with Richard Dawkins or not, I think he articulates really well the root source of disagreement between people who see and portray themselves as "pro-life," on one hand, and people who see and portray themselves as "pro-choice," on the other: The two groups disagree as to when a human life begins. People who call themselves "pro-life" sincerely believe life begins at the moment of conception. For example, most people in this camp believe the cells at all stages of human embryonic development constitute a human life.[a] Alas, there is a large subgroup of people in this camp whose rationale for these beliefs is religious and absolutist, and therefore non-negotiable. People who call themselves "pro-choice" have differing views as to when a human life begins. Most people in this camp think that cells at all stages of human embryonic development are just... cells, incapable of suffering because they lack a brain.[a] However, as an embryo gradually starts becoming a fetus, people in this camp often disagree with each other as to when those cells start becoming a human being. And then there's a large subgroup of people in this camp whose rationale is ideological and absolutist, and therefore non-negotiable. IMHO the religious and ideological people on both sides are unlikely ever to come to agreement. -- [a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryonic_development#/media/File:HumanEmbryogenesis.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryonic_development#/m...