--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Ah, but "a woman's right to choose" makes a much more effective
slogan
than "the right of a mother to kill her own baby".
it's not a "baby" until it is born.
I'm going to have to agree with both of you. It's not a baby yet because the state does not recognize it as a human being. (try applying for SSN Number or opening a bank account under an unborn baby's name).
So since it's not a baby, we could say: The 3-8 pounds of flesh that most likely will become a human being but is still technically just part of the woman's body.
Yes "the woman's right to choose" is a much better slogan.
Because her choice is not killing, but rather eliminating, or terminating, a process that is taking place in her own body.
Does a man get charged with a crime if he decides to castrate himself? It's his body, his choise, damaging or removing flesh which in most cases can produce a baby.
can a woman have her uterus surgically removed? It it has no baby in it?
Why should the state have this much say in what goes on inside someone's body? Where do we draw the line?
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/