Quote:
Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
I wish they would give up deciding what OTHER women can do with their bodies, and who OTHER people can marry. I'm not advocating taking away their free speech rights. I'm advocating them MINDING THEIR OWN FVCKING BUSINESS. That's pretty darn American right there.
|
Playing devil's advocate here...
The problem is, they think that the other women are harming a 3rd party - the unborn child. Because the fundamental problem with the debate is that the two sides disagree on whether the baby is a third party with its own rights or not (in which case, the pregnant woman would be imposing her desires on the rights of the baby to do what it wants with its body... theoretically).
For me, I'll call a baby a person when it can survive outside the womb. It's not a perfect definition, but a working one. I don't think a perfect definition can be made. I mean, a fertilized egg, if brought outside the womb, does not become a human being. And a fetus at 8 1/2 months could be born that day and survive into adulthood. So we know the line is somewhere between the two. (Well, except for the fundies who think a fertilized egg is a baby.) But as to where the actual line between part of the mom's body or individual being actually is, that's much harder to say.