Ed, Get real. A fetus is NOT "separate". Being INSIDE of another's body, AND physically attached to it 100% of the time for survival, is NOT "separate" (by any definition of "person"). Whatever you mean by "biological entity", it is nothing that can possibly have rights. If you intend to continue your disagreement, tell us how a fetus can own or choose or be identified while residing inside another's body. Of course, despite what you claim, a newborn CAN assert its rights; it can express desires, hold things, make choices, be identified, etc.
And despite what you claim, these things say nothing about the issue of child neglect. Dependency and care-giving are irrelevant to the issue of abortion, since everything changes once there is a separate person and rights. IOW my argument does not say that a mother is within her rights to dump a kid in the dumpster and walk away. That is quite another discussion. Apparently, albeit in a strange way, you have conceded my point about conjoined twins. If you say you oppose the state making the decision for the mother, our disagreement is basically moot. OTOH if you still want to credibly insist that abortion is wrong, you will need to provide a credible basis. You have not done that. And with such an opinion, you will have a difficult time convincing others that you honestly oppose state abortion law. Happy New Year Hoping for, and wishing everyone, a MUCH better decade Still betting that information and knowledge are key ------------------------- I don't accept your premises. Your concept of rights seems to depend on two things. One is the separateness of the body from anothers. In reality, a fetus is separate. The fetus is connected to the mother only through the placenta. However, that is not a connection in the sense that your arm is connected to your body. A placenta is actually a tangle of interwoven veins. Some of these veins are the mother's and some are the child's. These serve to carry food and oxygen to the child but the child is still a separate biological entity. In reality, the mother is merely providing food and oxygen to the child. The newly born child is totally dependent on the mother or some other responsible human for food as well. Hopefully, at this point the child can supply it's own oxygen but even this is, at times, required to be provided with assistance. The other premise is the ability to assert rights. Clearly, the newborn child cannot assert it's rights. At most it can complain, often quite loudly, when it's rights are violated but mostly the complaints are about hunger and dirty diapers. No adult has the right to food or a clean butt provided by someone else. So, given your premises, a mother is quite within her rights to dump a kid in the dumpster and walk away. Lastly, your question about the conjoined "head" is illustrative of my position. You ask ME to decide when a conjoined twin becomes a human and has rights. I'm saying that I do not know and do not have the right to make that decision either for the "internal head" or for the "host." This is why I oppose the state making the decision for the mother. I also refuse to make supporters of abortion comfortable with their position by agreeing with their position that a baby is nothing more than a piece of protoplasm before it passes through the birth canal. As I said, it is not a simple thing. The whole issue is complicated and should not be discussed in such black and white terms as Rand does. Ed$
