Fred Capuccino, an Unitarian minister, used to believe abortion was wrong.
But then he attended an Assembly of his denomination, at which women who had had abortions spoke up in favour of it.
As the lines formed, I was fascinated and somewhat disturbed to see that the line against the motion (against pro-choice) was mostly men, while the other line was mostly women -- and I knew some of these women.
Several were wives of ministerial colleagues, and two were ministers themselves. I was hit with a terrible realization: I could not vote against these women! I just sat there and wept, openly sobbing right in my seat. I finally voted with the women, and the motion passed overwhelmingly.
UPDATE: Heavily edited after deBeauxOs' comment.
Notice how he does not analyze the issue.
Therefore he stopped believing it was wrong.
He didn't change his mind based on the nature of the action. He just didn't want to have to tell women he knew that
He
That's irrational. When you want to know if an action is right or wrong look at the action.
And he says that he thought that abortion was the taking of human life.
Did the unborn child suddenly lose rights because some women did not recognize them?
That's frightening logic. Who's next? What group of people are going to have their rights taken away because they're inconvenient?
I often speak in favour of fetal rights. The reason why I do this is because for many people, human life is a concept, not a person. This minister treated the unborn child as a concept, not a person. That's why he could so easily change his mind. In his mind, those women were not depriving another human being of their right to life. They were doing away with a concept.
We cannot treat human life as a concept. We must treat each human life as a person.
For more social conservative news check out BigBlueWave.ca
