Kandahar said:
Who cares? The fact that the English language uses two dichotomous words "fetus" and "baby" doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes conscious and deserving of a right to life at any moment. There needs to be a legal cutoff and birth seems like the most appropriate place for that cutoff.
Scarecrow, would you consider a two-celled zygote to be a "baby" also?
Can a zygote get stuck between a woman's legs? More importantly, would she notice?
But I'm going to stick to the topic I started. If I don't, who will? I'll certainly admit I'm against abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy (while also conceding that most birth control pills don't prevent ovulation so much as inhibit implantation, ie they're an abortifacient, not a contraceptive), but the pro-abortion crowd's defense of this one heinous procedure seperates the dykes from the men on this issue.
This poll arose because some people won't accept any limits on abortion. Specifically Steen is quibbling over the definition of the word "baby".
I say that thing stuck there is a baby, and deserves protection. Given the state of technology, you're probably right, and in the real world there should be a limit beyond which the fetus is granted the protection against murder all other human beings are accorded. IMO that's after fertilization and before the first cell division...:roll:, but if that's unreasonable, as many will argue, it's definitely even more unreasonable to set that limit to a millisecond before physical separation from the mother.
That's like telling ole' Tookie he's free to go, then shooting him just after he's got one foot out the gate but before he lifts the other.
