soc.women

Paul Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:00:55 -0700, "yarrido@ "
> wrote:
>
> >Actually, that depends on what you include/exclude from defintion of
> >abortion. If the pregnant woman is murdered and the unborn dies, how
> >is that death any different from an abortion in a clinic? As I recall,
> >there are laws on the book that make that a double murder. So, while
> >such a death is not called an abortion, I see no difference as in both
> >cases the same kind of organism dies and see no logical reason not to
> >call it one. It seems that you do, but will you tell me what it is?
>
> An induced abortion is the act of a woman terminating her pregnancy.
>
> The crimes you are talking about take place against the wishes of the
> woman, and generally include the death of the woman.
>
> The reason you cannot see a difference is that you cannot see a
> pregnant woman as being a human being with the basic human right of
> bodily autonomy.
>
> The proposed law is of the same mindset as you: a pregnant woman is
> not a human being allowed to choose how her body will be used. She
> is, instead, a slave, owned by both the fetus and the 'father' of the
> fetus. She loses her basic human rights once she becomes pregnant.
>
> Since you cannot understand that a woman is a human being -- no, it is
> not possible to get you to understand the difference.

Women are indeed human beings. So killing a woman is murder, and there
is a difference between killing two human beings and killing one.

If a man killing a pregnant woman is charged with killing a second
human being, though, then that implies that an unborn child is a human
being.

And abortion is killing the *same* human being.

You seem to have a problem too - failing to understand that an unborn
child is a human being.

How a "right of bodily autonomy" can exist if it implies the right to
kill another human being as part of its enjoyment is what I have a
hard time understanding.

John Savard