"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news:utxbj.4046$1q4.301@trnddc06...
How about them? Are you saying that since she's been making this
fetus for almost 9 months, that there's some magical, miraculous
moment when the woman is no longer a person, but only her fetus is?

Would you declare women to be beasts of burden, then? The pro-lifers
clearly do.

What is this mental block with you people and thinking women are "beasts of
burden"? I just don't get it. It's certainly nothing I've said or
implied, in this thread or I think at any time on the internet.

The point is, when does the fetus become a human being, and why? If the
baby is a person immediately after (or while?) being born, and nothing
before that event, what fundamentally is different about it? C-sections
prove that the fetus can be "personized" so to speak at an arbitrary time,
so I don't really get why birth should be the defining event. It seems to
me it is the mother's responsibility to care for her fetus just as it is
her (and her S.O.'s...if there is one) responsibility to care for the
child. There are clear laws concerning the treatment of children, which
you have stated your approval of. Why shouldn't these apply to a fetus as
well?

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms