"The point of Thomson’s analogy is that a right to life does not entail a right to the use of other people’s bodies, or an obligation on their part to allow their bodies to be used by even the vulnerable and the needy."

The logical ramification/extention of this logic is that anyone in society can be 'culled' if they are an inconvenience on another persons 'body' ! (given that the reasoning behind this statement in the article is that 'even if the foetus is granted personhood')

MORAL RELATIVISM. This area of life is a classic illustration of the stumbling/grasping/don't have a clue-ism and 'take the line of most convenience'-ism that characterises so much of post modern/post Christian society. The reduction of human life to an issue of 'convenience' deserves condemnation of the serverest kind.

How about thinking of the fact that when a man and woman come together in intercourse and a child is conceived, that this is a human life in the normal course of things, that there can never be a question of 'convenience' over a newly created human life. The idea that its about a 'womans body and choice' is disgusting. A conceived child is just THAT ! An unborn child, containing the life of the FATHER just as much as that of the mother. How DARE anyone suggest that just because the female is the carrier of the child, that it is any less part of the father or that its life can be denegrated to a convenience issue. Adoption is always a means of not only releasing ones self of the on going struggle of raising a child, it is also a way of giving unspeakable joy to childless couples.
BILICAL PRINCIPLE. Psalm 139
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

Hypothetically - if a woman engaged in consensual intercourse, got pregnant and then was told that taking the pregnancy to full term would mean that she - because of complications - had a 50% chance of dying in childbirth, or that she - because of complications - must have a caesarian birth or die herself but in fact for religious or ethical reasons cannot undergo such surgery. Well ... faced with a such a choice, does she not have the right to say that in fact, abortion is an appropriate choice given that the alternative is her own death? Or death of her future dreams, aspirations, plans ... or is it only women that have to subsume their life to 'another'?

I'll bet some of these pro-abortionists are against capital punishment. They will wave banners and scream to save murderers and rapists from the noose or the firing squad, but they believe in killing an innocent helpless unborn child.

The say it's the woman's body to do with as she likes. If a woman wants to cut off her big toe, I would think :What an idiot, but it's her body, and her business". But abortion is something very different. There's another "party" involved, a tiny human being. Does anyone really deny it's a baby which is destined to grow into an adult human? Look at the recent pictures from the womb and any denial is self deception.

But these people now don't care if it IS a baby, they still want to kill it! Put the scissors into its tiny skull, no worries. How cruel and despicable can they get?

They are the one's who are "playing God". How can the medical staff carrying out this barbarism justify it in light of the Hippocratic Oath [Modern Version 1964] which states" above all I must not play at God"

I came across a little poem by Patricia Hesselgrave by chance recently.
It's called "A Cry Of Help".

I know you can't see me,
because I'm so new.
It's dark in here, deep within you.
Wait, I feel something wrong.
What can it be?
Oh no! I think my Mom
wants to get rid of me.
Doesn't she know
God's already given me my soul
and with her help my body will grow?
I know I'm small, the size of a spoon,
and it would be so easy
to just let me go.
Please don't take my life
just to make yours easier.
I have lots I'll be able to do,
and I promise to always love you.
Please let me grow
Please let me live
Please let me be born!

Hi BOAZ_David I was wondering what happened to your posts….

I am a father. I disagree with your supposition – the mother is carrier of an embryo and I will be THE ONE WHO DARES say that she has a more significant role and involvement in the pregnancy and she has a greater right of decision than the father ever will.

Re “The idea that its about a woman’s body and choice is disgusting”
The idea that Pro-Life advocates should expect to have control in the private decisions of people who do not hold similar views to them and to have that control with no responsibility for their imposed decision, DISGUSTING TOO –
Therefore result of the "disgusting stakes" is a draw.

More biblical enunciations – forget it– we live in a secular society with the priesthood in a state of disgrace through the evidence of their own corruption. “Bible Bashing” might work on religious zealots but it is not on the 90% of the population which does not bother to attend church..

Audrey – you are right – her body her choice – not some stranger who makes demands yet has no authority, responsibility or anything to lose by her decision.

Big Al 30 – I am Pro-Choice I am also be pro-death penalty and would extend its mandatory use to drug dealers on their second conviction. I hope that clears up your speculation. Oh and by the way – "Pro Choice" is not "pro-abortion" – I support the woman’s right to choose – that means “her choice” and many millions have chosen to have babies in the time since abortion has been de-criminalised.

Now your florid and emotional attempts to de-rationalise the debate will not work.
In the end we have
An individual woman who has a right to determine how her body will be used
versus
a bunch of nitwits who believe they have the right to force her, against her will, to endure a pregnancy..
I will always support the woman

Haven't you caught on yet? It's not just HER body. There's another human life in this equasion, and he/she has rights too, No one has the right to kill that child, and that includes you

Bill M is on the money as far as I'm concerned. Mother and unborn are two seperate persons, tho' very combined during pregnancy. Whether others are convinced or not is up to their own conscience. What compounds / aggravates the problem is the the lack of readily available options such as finances to carry the child to term for adoption or to carry on with the child.
OE