Oh, I don't know about that. I think that they are far superior to your reading comprehension. Do you have any understanding as to what the phrase 'every man for himself' means? It's uttered when the shit hits the fan, and everyone is at the very real risk of death. In such a disaster, every individual is perfectly entitled to act in a fashion to preserve their own life. When the woman is at the very real risk of death due to a pregnancy, then, and only then, should she be allowed to terminate. Because certain privileges, such as the privilege to drive and vote, would be wasted on a fetus. Note how I'm not denying privileges based on arbitrary justification (eg. the fetus isn't a 'person') but on functional capacity required to engage in the activities required by the privilege. The fetus should be protected from human experimentation. I'm of the personal opinion that animals should also be protected from experimentation. No? Tough shit. My stance isn't a belief, it's a scientific fact. A fetus is alive in every sense of the word. No. If it were, then a parent could claim that life only really begins at 30, and kill any of their children who step out of line. Yes. Don't know, don't care. Please focus on the present instead of obfuscating. Huh? What on earth are you gabbling about? Relevance? Tough shit. Many deadbeat dads don't want Child Welfare's hand in their wallet, and we don't give a shit about their feelings of injustice. You could apply a similar analogy to a born child and their parents. However, I have slightly better analogy than your crappy one. What if one day I was driving in a dangerous fashion, and struck a pedestrian who was doing no wrong. When I woke up, I was told by the doctor that in order for the victim to survive, they required frequent rare blood transfusions from me for the next 9 months. Do I have a moral obligation to help this pedestrian, who was harmed due to my actions? I think so. Should I have legal obligation to help him? Hell yes. A fetus is conceived through the actions of the mother and father, therefore they owe it a 'duty of care', so to speak. I know what a born baby has protection, and an unborn baby doesn't. Convenience. I don't agree with such hypocrisy, however. It is a misrepresentation. And I have corrected it *numerous* times. Please, for the love of all that is holy, read my previous posts before responding. Why would we do that? Yes. Surely you can distinguish between allowing someone the right to choose, and regarding a choice as foolish? The mother sacrificed her life for what you consider to be a non-person. The fact that you are being so evasive in directly addressing this conundrum is telling.