[WikiEN-l] Following up -

Thu Oct 30 23:02:37 UTC 2003

--- tarquin <tarquin at 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 at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/