Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGuffin
In this case, the fetus is growing inside the mother. The mother did not MAKE conception happen. She didn't connect the sperm to the egg and make it actually travel down the fallopian tubes and implant on her uterine wall. Even if she didn't use birth control, she still was not ACTUALLY responsible for the fertilization of the egg. That's just damn biology.
|
I feel this is where a logical hiccup occurs. While the mother may indeed have no control over the biological processes, none of them would take place but for (in most cases at least) a conscious choice by both father and mother to engage in unprotected sex, and subsequently not using emergency contraceptives. But for that conscious act, none of the aforementioned would happen. You appear to be implying a break in the causal chain where none exists. It's on the same scale as saying that because the President of the United States isn't in control of the processes of nuclear fission, it's not his responsibility if he presses the button on a nuke and blows up North Korea (for example). It just doesn't add up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGuffin
That baby is inside HER body. It belongs to HER. It's HER body to take care of. She should NEVER be told what she can and can't do with it.
|
Forgive me if this sounds a bit dramatic, but I found this statement quite chilling. At no point is a human being the property of another - end of story. We may well have had that mindset a few centuries ago, but not any more. The foetus is a genetically unique individual, 50% the mother's DNA and 50% the father's, and while they jointly have responsibility for it (in my view at least) from gestation to birth they do not at any stage own it. I trust this is not what you were implying, because otherwise I will readily admit I am very alarmed by that notion. If you don't see why, consider the implications of that logic in relation to cases of child abuse, where someone could easily argue it's their "property" to treat as they wish...