Uhnm… I hope you left out an “in”, as in “but isn’t it in the woman’s uterus”. Because otherwise you’ve just failed sex ed, anatomy 101 and a bunch of other basic subjects. And the fetus does have its own body parts, once it starts having them.
Yes, I was trying to make the point that the “baby” has no right to be in the woman’s uterus if she does not want it to be there. Apparently the anti-abortion crew believes that, when a woman gets pregnant, her uterus now belongs to the “baby.”
Of course it’s the woman’s uterus. But the underlying question might well have been understood to be, “Isn’t it the women’s uterus, and therefore any law which purports to compel her in any way is unacceptable?”
The answer to that question is, in fact, “No.”
We might imagine a similar conversation about child support. Says the father, “Isn’t it my body, working every day to generate money? How can you compel me to take some of the money I earn every day with my body’s physical efforts, and hand it to my child’s mother?”
And the answer to that question is: as a society, we regard the welfare of the child as of such importance that we are willing to require the man to at least for a time disgorge some of his money to assist the child – even in cases where the man is of no biological relation to the child!
So now we return to your conversation with the abortion protester: what if the conversation had gone like this:
Protestor: (The Baby) has his own head, his own arms, his own legs…
Annie: But isn’t it the woman’s uterus?
Protestor: Yes, but that’s not really the question here; as a society, we regard the welfare of the child as of such importance that we are willing to require the woman to at least for a time use her uterus to assure the life and safety of her biological child.
Thanks for the explanations, as I evidently hadn’t understood it. While using a pronoun before the name it refers to isn’t illegal in Spain, it’s definitely something I’m not used to.
Unless Obama put a vegetarian in charge of the USDA who put forth regulations that said all cattle slaughtering must take place in the office of a certified veterinary surgeon via lethal injection after it had reached the end of its natural life, I don’t see the connection. Please indicate Democratically initiated regulations that are specifically designed for moral reasons so as to make a constitutionally protected service impossible. The closest I can think of is Big Tobacco and we haven’t eve come close to shutting them down.
When you use terms like “anti-choice” it kinda makes you look like one.
When Democrats try to regulate coal (for example), theya re not trying to shut down coal fired power plants, thats just the side effect of regulations that make industries pay for their own externalities.
Republicans aren’t trying to make abortions safer, they are trying to get rid of them. Its an end run around Roe v Wade.
You mean the ones that were part ofFirearms Control Regulations Act of 1975? That was passed by the District of Columbia city council. And were only struck down in DC v. Heller in 2008 before Obama was even elected.
But the difference in general conversation is in whether the whatever is wanted or not, and in conversations about abortion on whether the speaker is pro-choice or not (not-pro-choice <> pro-life), so Bricker’s usage is perfectly cromulent.