flipper wrote:


But a fetus is not a person.


That may be, and obviously is, your opinion but simply declaring it to
be so doesn't make it so and there are plenty who disagree.


Its kind of funny that this was not an issue for anyone until the
religous rignt and the republicians starting with Regan.

The court allowed woman freedom to decide ( Roe v Wade),
then Regan decided to court the religous vote that did not exist before.

Yes, I agree that "plenty who disagree", but do they disagree because
their pastors told them to disagree, or because they do give a damn.




And, I dare say, some would argue your definition to be arbitrary with
no philosophical or scientific basis. Why not pick when it can walk,

This is true for both sides of this discussion.

(we can add that god has no philosophical or scientific basis either.
He, she, it has been made up in an arbitrary fashion too.)


or talk, or passes puberty and can reproduce? Those are all
'conveniently' definable events as well.

The other side, however, can argue that the unborn's DNA clearly
establishes it's 'human' and, further, a 'human' distinct from either
parent.

Or, put another way, take a biopsy of both mother and the unborn, send
it off for blind testing, and the DNA results will identify two
distinct, albeit related, human beings. And, btw, you'll get similar
DNA results regardless of which side of the birth canal the biopsy is
taken.


The person who is gestating it is. And
also, she is its owner, just as you are the owner of your own body
and all of its contents.


The DNA of the unborn clearly establishes it is not 'her body'.


This isn't explicitly spelled out in the
Constitution, but it's one of those that _should_ be self-evident,
to anyone who has more than two neurons to rub together.


The situation changes if you use the neurons as brain cells instead of
just rubbing them together.


Hope This Helps!
Rich