It is encouraging to someone like me (pro-life) that reasonable people on the other side of this issue have found their voice. They are challenging some of the radical pro-abortion lobby's agenda. Though the issue is highly emotional and divisive, there is common ground to be found. This is a good start. As well as Matt's editorial in today's (2/11/04) Seattle Times.

"I also realize that if a woman cannot say "everything under my skin is 'me' and mine to control," then there is no foundation for individual rights."

I am pro-life, and I agree with that statement entirely - right up until th woman CHOOSES to put another life there.

That is, the statement makes the implicit assumption that the fetus is not a person (which is the entire debate, actually), OR that thee fetus IS a person but has invaded the woman's body against her will.

Except in case of rape, the fetus is there BY THE WOMAN'S CHOICE. She may not have meant to get pregnant, but by choosing to have intercourse, she chose to RISK getting pregnant. The fetus did NO choosing whatsoever.

Analogy:

You walk by a swimming pool and seem a baby drowning. You are under no legal obligation to save the baby (unless perhaps you are a licensed lifeguard or something); saving it would be good, but you don't have to risk yourself for someone else.

UNLESS

You threw the baby into the pool in the first place.

That is exactly lgally analogous to the situation of non-rape preganancy (IF the fetus is a person). The fetus' life is in danger due to YOUR actions.

Otherwise, a good article, and good soul-searching for those who condone a practice that might just be murder (as I think it is). Even if you don't change your mind on it, when it's something this important, you better take the time to be sure.

While the moral weighing is interesting, the crux of the pro-choice position is still this untenable
absolutist dogma about body control ...

"I also realize that if a woman cannot say "everything under my skin is 'me' and mine to control," then there is no foundation for individual rights."

---

So you oppose the FDA, eh??? No?!? How come 'pro-choice' women seem perfectly comfortable with a Government that robs us of taxes, tells us what to do when in comes to doctors (licensing, Medicare, etc.), drugs (FDA, illicit drug laws), food (FDA again, USDA), and other regulations where the state tells you what you can and cannot do with your body ... then come up with these phony arguments to support killing a fetus.

It would be a tad more convincing if the logic werent so convoluted and at variance with reality.

So while true hindrances to one's body control (eg regulations on surgery or drugs), the argument leaves out the small inconvenient reality that there is another human with distinct DNA and a tiny heartbeat and developing brain involved. As such, the statement is no different than justifying child abuse with 'my home is my castle' type statements. Your rights end where another life begins, to paraphrase Chesterton.

The dogmatic rhetoric doesnt match the political programmatic reality. If it did, the pro-'choice' crowd would be demanding the END of taxation for Social Security and Medicare, they would be pushing for School Vouchers or maybe call for an end to compulsory schooling and a separation of church and state. Absurd? As absurd as using absolutist arguments about 'my body' yet applying that inconsistently only to the cases when the life of a fetus was getting in the way.

I too am pro-choice btw. School choice. Gun choice. Social security choice. Property choice. Worker-union choice. Life choice. But I don't support taking human life. That is a barbaric and uncivilized choice that can and should be shunned.