at least thats my humble opinion. before a fetus is born, and becomes a baby, it is the mother's choice, and only the mother's choice whether to continue the pregnancy. if you kill the mother and a viable fetus, then its two murders. i have no problem with the apparent inconsistency. it's not a baby if the mother wants to abort it, it is a baby if someone else kills it. because until birth, the fetus is a part of the mother. therefore, only she gets to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy.

now, i might even be persuaded that in the bizarre hypothetical where a mother wanted to terminate a pregnancy in the 8th month, that perhaps some sort of live birth delivery could be appropriate provided it would not jeopardize the health or life of the mother. but i haven't put a lot of thought into it, because it just doesnt happen.

For example, several years ago a local woman who happened to be a crack addict was arrested and detained until she gave birth because her preceding pregnancies resulted in babies being born addicted to crack. The justification of the authorities (and most public sentiment seemed to agree) was that it was for the safety of the baby, since the mom was not going to stop being a crackhead even if she was pregnant. And of course, the resulting baby was immediately put into foster care. Don't know for sure what happened to the woman.

Double murder? I don't buy it. Tragic, but not what they claim.

As for viability, it seems that viability is not proven until the baby, out of the woman's body, survives.

When a woman menstruates, we don't have a funeral. When there's a miscarriage, there can be terrible suffering and grief, but there's no funeral or death certificate. When a birth delivers a dead fetus, it is called "stillborn," not the death of a 9-month-old baby.

Even in the rhetoric employed by those who advocate government control of women's bodies employs very clear language: "unborn" and "pre-born." Both terms mean, literally, "not born," meaning not yet of this world, not yet persons.

Ok, I went to bed thinking about this, and still have a couple of questions. If a fetus isn't a person until it's born, or at least citizenship rights aren't conferred upon it until it's born, what does that say about the mother who is happy about the baby and is eagerly waiting for the day when she meets it?

I think citizenship is crucial here, because the baby is given citizenship of whichever country it happens to be born in, correct? And with citizenship come whatever rights being a citizen in that country happens to involve.

I agree partially with the original thesis, but I would also posit that to parents--most especial mothers--for whom a baby is a blessing, that baby, long before its birth, has become a real person. I know I named my youngest daughter while she was still in the womb, and felt fiercely and protectively motherly toward her. Otherwise why bother with all those pre-natal vitamins and weekly check-ups and eating healthy and forgoing certain pleasures and vices, if not for the good of the baby?

For me the problem is the fear of giving them an inch, because I know they won't rest until they reach their final goal.

The other side uses modern technology to make the case that life starts before birth, but denies modern technology to women (morning after pill) who do not want to take a baby to term.

Focusing on the start of life, which is an arbitrarily chosen point (life began in the primordial soup folks...there hasn't been any start since then) is only allowing the Right to frame the debate.

Our focus should be on putting them in the position of confessing their ultimate goals, which is, denying birth control to women.

And by the way Kactus, I know what you mean. I was also attached to my kids in utero and I just don't believe that a woman would take a baby all the way to term (doing all the damage that pregnancy does - feeling them kick) and then choose to terminate unless there was something ext

I have a hard time understanding how any sane, well-educated person could carry a fetus to full-term and then want to abort without some seriously extenuating circumstances (I am assuming here, btw, that the teenage mothers who carry and give birth before leaving the baby in a dumpster aren't "sane" in terms of "right mind" at the time. They may not be insane in the sense of hallucinations, but I don't consider the kind of fear and anxiety that leads up to that to be normal either.)

If I were to carry a pregnancy full term, I don't care if what comes out is an old boot. It's MINE. After putting up with sickness, cramping, and all of the other assorted aspects of pregnancy, I'd be earning it.

I guess we can all see now why I don't have and don't want kids ;-P I do fully realize that anyone who considers a child the product of her body and not an individual in the way I just expressed should not have any. Now, if I could just re-arrange the medical world to let me choose not to have any permanently, I'll be happier, but that's a whole 'nother blog.

I don't think ANYONE male or female should be a parent if they don't want to be and I think that the pregnancy should be terminated if both parties are not in favor of it.

Parenting is a great job, but it is a huge job and I think people know if and when they are ready.

I agree with you completely, Dream. And I agree also about the concept of gunning for the whole package--to the point where I almost hesitated before writing a couple of my posts in case they could be construed as somehow supporting the antis. Abortion should be and (so far is) legal, and I don't believe anybody has the right to make that decision for a woman. I'm just saying that the concept of personhood varies. I've already said on this blog that I've had an abortion, and felt no compunction about it, nor guilt or regret. What made it different for me with this last pregnancy, that I decided to have this baby? My financial situation wasn't any better. I was older and in worse health than when I had the abortion. I'd separated from the fetus's father already, so I knew I was looking at yet another 18 years, probably, of single parenthood. And I DID struggle with trying to make a decision of whether to keep or abort.

In the end it was entirely my decision, based upon reasons that were RIGHT for me, even though to the outside world it may have looked crazy, to keep this baby. And she has been nothing but a blessing, as I knew she would be. And even if you try to argue that I let sentimentality get in the way of my decision, that's still okay. Just as I DIDN'T let sentimentality get in the way of my previous decision to have an abortion.

But from the minute I decided to keep her--before she was even confirmed as a her--I loved her and talked to her and to me she was a whole being, although still a part of me.

I used to think I knew what love was, and then I had a child and found I had been mistaken.