An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
A Republican’s Right To Choose
RJ Matson, Roll Call
39 Responses to “A Republican’s Right To Choose”
A question for you conservatives out there. It’s long been my impression that there is a certain sector of conservative America that has a duality; they like to hear that their politicians are “pro-life” but at the same time they don’t really want Roe vs. Wade overturned, or at the very least they want the possibility for a legal abortion to exist. It’s as if being “pro-life” is the mark of good moral character, but the actual reality of what that would mean in practice is less attractive.
Or it could just be my admittedly over-active imagination. Anyone?
I can’t say that I’ve ever met anyone like that, Lynx, but then again most of my Republican friends really are pro-life so they tend to view candidates with that viewpoint in a favorable way because they agree, not because they see it as some sort of badge of honor.
I wonder if what you are picking up on though is that many pro-choice people do think that Roe v. Wade was a bad judicial decision and they want it overturned so that the legislatures can decide (which gives the decision to the people). And, polling data shows that while a majority of Americans (conservative and liberal/progressive as well as everything in between) don’t want abortion to be completely illegal, they don’t actually want the current system which allows abortion on demand either.
As a not-conservative, I see it differently than CStanley.
The ‘bad law’ argument does have backing by many, simply because the RvW decision has turned out to be so divisive.
On the other hand, we had soldiers in tanks enforcing the integraiion of schools, and no one wants to re-argue that issue on a states’ rights basis.
The arguments are chosen more to press for advantage than anything else IMO. I foresee that overturning the ruling would lead to a situation as divisive as what we have now. so I don’t give it too much merit.
It’s all about who gets to control the private decisions of women.
An interesting corollary is the quesrion of public funding, which is at the top of the agenda for pro-lifers.
If abortion were illegal, rich women will take ‘vacation’ trips to take care of their prolbem. They can safely vote for ‘pro-life’ candidates, while not overturning RvW would mean the convenience of shorter trips.
I think positions on this issue are based on many things, including religion, but one of the underlying considerations reflects how personally impacted a person feels. The freedom that money can buy for oneself often serves to shield against understanding those with more limited escape routes from legal restrictions.
doma,
Do you really find it so impossible to believe that there are many people who believe that abortion is wrong- and not just wrong as a personal choice for themselves, but wrong to allow others to do it as well because a human life is being taken?
The Republicans have turned into the old very Liberal “Great Society” Democrats. Wonder why Democrats like Webb and Schuler won against the current Republicans? The Republicans can have the rural South and Texas. Creationism and a flat earth…
“C Stanley Says:
May 18th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Do you really find it so impossible to believe that there are many people who believe that abortion is wrong- and not just wrong as a personal choice for themselves, but wrong to allow others to do it as well because a human life is being taken?”
I truely believe that your group is a minority. I’ve read time and time again from various sources where ‘anti-choice’ people are only anti-choice for other people.
Concerning what C Stanley says, it is truly surprising that so many people hold to the absurd idea that a fetus is a person and abortion involves taking a human life.
CS-
I absolutely believe that some people think it’s worng in their sincere judgment.
As you well know, I don’t think others should have to live by this belief system.
Can you accept that some have a different criterion for when life or personhood begins – equally sincere?
But that’s not the question posed by Lynx.
In response to that, I stated my opinion that some people are hedging their bets.
Part (not all) for that depends on their ability to finance alternatives. They can be both morally upright and vote for the right candidates while not feeling threatenedd by changes in law.
christine – The pro-life crowd doesn’t care about your choice, a zygote or embryo is a sentient being with a soul from God. It (zygote)screams “I wanna live” in your womb and they have every right to tell you what your options are. Never minds if congenital defects will have serious consequences on the baby. Taking a life isn’t a problem in Buffalo…
domajot -
There is a huge difference.
First, many of those who object to RvW on technical points (such as myself) do so because the ‘right to privacy’ was ‘found’ by the SCOTUS in the 14th amendment to the Constitution, which was the main basis for RvW.
Brown vs. Board of Education declared the ‘seperate bu equal’ doctrine inherently unfair, and therefore subject to teh 14th’s Article 1 Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
I don’t want to see RvW be a ‘States Rights’ case. I think a strong argument that the Commerce Clause covers the Federal Government enacting national abortion laws and protections (particularly in lieu Reich and Carhart).
The problem is that it seems not too many people really want Congress to decide the abortion issue, and prefer to battle it out in the courts.
Christine,
Perhaps you only believe this because “you’ve heard it again and again”. Have you seen any actual evidence to support it?
Holly,
Yes, all those absurd people like those who bond with their ‘fetus’, give it a name, sing to it, and those who agree with laws to criminalize murder of fetuses (the wanted ones, that is, which are the only ones that some people seem to feel are worthy of legal protection.)
Doma,
I do respect differences of opinion but I’d like the same respect rather than your argument that the whole point of the pro-life movement is to restrict other people’s rights while the rich can still get abortions. Who’s being disrespectful of others’ opinions here? You’ve completely dismissed people who sincerely hold the pro-life viewpoint as an irrelevant minority.
As will always happen with abortion debates, things go beyond the original question.
1- If you sincerely believe that a zygote, embryo or fetus is equal to a person, then it’s natural you give a damn about somebody else’s “choice”. When you prohibit murder, you are also limiting “choice”. Your rights end where another person’s begin, the issue isn’t that, it’s what constitutes “another person”.
2- If you don’t believe in souls it’s highly unlikely that you believe that a zygote is equal to a person, and since the existence of souls has yet to be proven scientifically (or even DEFINED precisely) it’s natural to assume that the belief that a zygote has a soul and therefore needs protection is a religious belief, and therefore limiting the choice of what to do with that zygote is a religious imposition.
3- Absolutely anyone who says that abortion is WRONG, but exceptions can be made in the case of rape or incest is being hypocritical. Human, but hypocritical. If a fetus is equal to a person, a fetus fathered by a rapist is also.
4- The vast majority of us have a point beyond which abortion makes us very uncomfortable. An 8-month abortion sounds horrific, but then what’s the standard? Viability? Science advances and every day you can help a pre-mature baby survive sooner and sooner. Someday, gestation may even be optional. When it looks like a baby? Yeah, real objective. Neural differentiation? Reaction to sound? Differentiation of the stem-cell lines? What?
5- Here’s a childish little game I’ve posted here before: If you were in a fertility clinic and a fire broke out. You have a choice, carrying out several Petri dishes with, say, 12 embryos, o a two year-old boy. Can anyone tell me they wouldn’t find it freaky if someone calmly chose the Petri dishes? Yet thinking that an embryo is equal to a baby in THEORY doesn’t make anybody blink.
Lynx,
I think your question #5 is a good one and I tried to answer it last time; I’ll try to repeat my general response.
I think the thought exercise you propose is one of those things that doesn’t have a good answer. If your spouse and child were in the burning building, which one would you save? Or how about two of your children? Your parents, etc…
So when I say that, you might be questioning whether or not I’d truly think twice about saving the fully developed child. Of course I wouldn’t- but I’m also aware that if I had time I’d save them all, and if the child weren’t there I’d still try to save the embryos. And even more importantly, I’m also aware that the main reason that I’d choose the two year old is because I’m aware that he is developed to the point of being able to feel pain and to suffer. To some people, the fact that the embryos don’t yet have that capability matters; to me it would only matter if I had to rank them against the two year old.
And similarly: if I was faced with one of those impossible situations with say, two children in the burning building, if one of them were already unconscious I’d grab the one who was conscious. That doesn’t prove that I don’t really believe the other one is a human being, does it?
Rudi, I’m well aware of what the majority of anti-choice group think.
CS, I’m glad that you live by your convictions and beliefs. But, I do not think that you have a right to decide what is correct for someone else. That’s what choice is about. If you beleive it to be wrong, that’s fine with me. The thing with the pro-choice group is that the majority are of the opinion, ‘safe, legal, and rare’. You’d find that the majority of pro-choice is that it is up to the woman and her ‘support’ group (whether it be family, friends, or doctors) to continue with a pregnancy of any type. Just to ask, are you all for a woman to die because the fetus she carries is located in the folupian (sp??) tubes?? This type of pregnancy can and does kill pregnant women. Why is the fetus more important than the woman??
Lynx, good comment.
christine,
The example you cite is the only case where I do think abortion should be permitted; when necessary to save the mother’s life.
If you are in the majority that you cite, then how do you propose to make abortion more rare?
And, are you going to ask my question (you just stated again to Rudi that you are well aware of what pro-lifers believe, but you haven’t responded to my question of how you know this)
C Stanley Says:
May 18th, 2007 at 9:41 am
By having true biological sex education in public school systems. Tell all the facts, not just abstiance only, not that condoms have a 15% failure rate – therefore making it sound like using a condom is worthless, that saying no is not a bad thing, that saying yes can have consequences. Make contraceptives available to anyone that wants it. Remove the stigma of demanding the use of contraceptives as a ‘bad’ thing. Also, stop saying it’s someone elses’ responsiblity to teach about the facts of life. The parents say the schools and church should. The schools try, but get lambasted for not teaching the ‘right’ things and therefore want to have the parents and churches teach about this. The chruch (well, it seems the majority) will spout dogma and not really teach the ‘facts’ and say it’s the responsiblity of the parents and schools. Just stop it and take responsiblity for your children. Being a parent means that you don’t just get the cute moments, but you have to also deal with all the ugly ones as well.
Europe has a more comprehensive sex education, they also have less stigma about the use of contraceptives of any kind. And they also have a much lower rate of unwanted pregnancies.
“And, are you going to ask my question (you just stated again to Rudi that you are well aware of what pro-lifers believe, but you haven’t responded to my question of how you know this)”
I know how pro-lifers feel because on New Years eve 1990 I was raped by a man I knew. I went back to college. I thought I might have been pregnant because my period was late. I went to the only clinic available for help to find out if I was pregnant. The only thing that they were concerned with was that I watch this film about the development of a fetus while the blood test was being done. They were not concerned in any way that I had been raped. They did not try to give counsel on how to deal with rape. They offered no assistance to prosecute the rape, or even to report it. I was a walking uterus to them.
christine,
I’m sorry that you had that awful experience; it also so happens that I’ve had almost the polar opposite experience of going to a Planned Parenthood clinic and being told that I was pregnant (which I wasn’t-confirmed by a blood test at a private ob-gyn the same day-and to this day I’m not sure if that was truly due to a false positive test or whether there was fraud involved). I was immediately told about my options which seemed to only include the ‘choice’ of which date to schedule an abortion. I too felt that I was a walking uterus, but for a different rea$on.
I’ve tried to not let that color my opinions of the pro-choice side too much but I have to admit it is hard to do so, just as your own personal experience must make it hard to see the pro-life side in an objective way.
BTW, christine, I’m sorry that I pushed for an answer since it obviously hinged on a very personal experience.
I just think that a large part of the reason that we’re not able to find common ground on abortion is because people tend to see the people on the other side of the issue as monsters. And we can each find examples of bad people with bad motives on our opponents side. Why can’t we acknowledge that but also acknowledge that the vast majority of Americans just have heartfelt opinions about the need to consider the mother’s plight (on the pro-legal side) and to consider the right to life of humans in the womb (on the side that would enact some prohibitions)?
C Stanley quite frankly I can’t help but think that it’s waaaay more likely for a pro-lifer to try to talk you into keeping a baby than for a pro-choicer to talk you into aborting a baby. This is mere common sense. A pro-lifer doesn’t want abortions EVER to happen, a pro-choicer merely wants you to have the OPTION to abort, not the OBLIGATION.
If you tell a person who is pro-life that you’re aborting, they will react with varying degrees of disapproval. Unless the person you have in front of you is insane, if you tell someone who is pro-choice that you’re pregnant and having the baby, they’ll just say “congratulations!”. Your experience had, I think, a great deal more to do with money grubbing scum than a particular position on abortion.
CS said”
“I’d like the same respect rather than your argument that the whole point of the pro-life movement is to restrict other people’s rights while the rich can still get abortions.”
—————
If you paraphrase me, don’t change my meaning in the process. We’ve argued this tipic many times before, and you should know better.
This is what my ‘whole point’ is.
1. I think there are people who share your beliefs, sincerely, with no ulterior motives.
2. I think there are people, different from you, who are calcualting their options under both the legal/illegal version of abortion.
Neither 1s nor 2s are necessarily concerned with how this impacts others, the 1s for ideological reasons, and the 2s for reasons of their own (not caring?)
I respect your sinceretiy. I can’t respect the pro-lifers’ oblivion as to tha consequences of their beliefs for oher women. I’m not saying this about you, because I don’t know, but in many cases it isn’t just oblivion, it’s willful oblivion.
The rich women’s abortions case is not a pursued goal, as far as I know but it is one such consequence. That’s what was true in the pre Roe days.
This reminds me, again, of the Mormons who baptized Jewish dead people into their religion in order to save their souls. They were sincere and they believed they were doing God’s work. But they caused enormous pain to those Jewish people who discovered these unauthorized baptisms of their relatives. [Mormons no longer do this]
We can bandy respect around, and that’s okay. A little humility about the reach of one’s beliefs would be welcome, however, and long overdue. Missionary work in many people’s private lives causes suffering.
Lynx,
The problem is that the ‘money grubbing scum’ that I encountered was the major abortion provider in the US. I honestly have no idea how typical my experience was but since it was the sum total of my personal experience it was 100% wrong.
And the thing is, it’s not just the money angle (though I do think that is a big problem). It’s also that everyone who has been involved in abortion in any way has a vested interest in making sure no one thinks too much about the so called “clump of tissue”. So while I agree with you that there are probably many, many pro-choice citizens who really do want abortions to be rare but legal, there are also many people for whom that position causes a conundrum: if abortion isn’t killing, then why is it bad enough to say that it should be so rare? And the stats show that there are a lot of people who’ve either had an abortion, have had a partner who’s had one, or have been involved in providing one or helping someone else get one. So I don’t really agree that there isn’t a similar pull for people not necessarily to promote abortion, but to be so uncomfortable with the thought that the fetus is a preborn baby that they want that information kept out of the discussion in a difficult pregnancy.
And that’s mainly what I’m getting at. Christine’s experience and mine both illustrate the extremes of information being given out that would push one viewpoint or the other instead of a more balanced approach. I actually find it far more disturbing in her case that they weren’t offering counseling services or discussing the prosecution of the rape than that they were showing her films about fetal development, although I agree that that wasn’t the appropriate time to do so.
doma,
I think the distinction you’ve now made is probably accurate about the prolife side, and it mirrors what I’m saying about the pro-legal abortion side. So that’s all I’m asking, that we not mischaracterize each side by pointing to only the insincere people. The only way to find common ground is for the sincere people to discuss it with each other and explain to each other why we feel our concern is important.
Lynx,
I think a better way to explain my point in that last exchange is that it really doesn’t matter whether or not the person holds a strong view on which outcome the pregnant woman chooses; you are probably right that the pro-life person is more concerned than the pro-choice one about which way the woman decides. However, my point is that what really matters is how that person (the one who’s in the position to advise the pregnant woman) handles the flow of information. If pro-choicers want to earn that label, they ought to be the ones who want the most information possible to go to the woman (aren’t all choices best made with a full set of information?). But instead, they often balk at informed consent that includes the kind of films that Christine described, or counseling that advises a woman to consider how she might feel later, etc. So what I’m saying is that both sides have an interest in giving only the information that supports one particular course of action in the case of a problem pregnancy. I realize that most pro-choicers do not seek to increase the number of abortions but in the particular case of dealing with a woman who is inconveniently pregnant, the pro-choicer is sometimes just as likely to give only the information that will tend to lead to the decision to abort (downplaying any concern about fetal life, often in an effort to make the decision easier) as is the pro-lifer likely to give information intended to sway the decision in favor of not aborting.
“then why is it bad enough to say that it should be so rare?”
The rare part comes into play, at least from my point of view, is that if there were proper education about sex and *all* the ways to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, then the abortion rate would go down. You do realize that *all* terminations of pregnancy, including those that are definite risk to the life of the mother, including the removal of fetus’ that have died at whatever stage, and all spontanious miscarriages are labled medically as abortion and are reported as such. A miscarriage is labeled as spontaneous abortion, regardless of stage of pregnancy and the procedures to remove the fetus is also labeled as an abortion. I ask only because there are some that are not aware of this fact. I got my info from the ob/gyn nurses/doctors from the 4th floor of the hospital I work at.
There is a Catholic based hospital in town that will not perform the procedure to remove a miscarried fetus, even if the miscarriage was in the 6th month of pregnancy, becuase it is considered abortion. They fully expect the woman to carry until her body tries to expel the dead fetus, or have the woman come into the emergency room with a raging infection caused by leaving the dead fetus in the womb. A good friend of mine lost three girls in the 5th and/or 6th month of pregnancy. She was able to get the medical care at a Presbyterian hospital and she’s an avowed Roman Catholic and wanted each of her 6 pregnancies. This hospital is not an isolated incident.
I have ultimately, but reluctantly, acquiesced into a first trimester-legal position simply because I cannot possibly no all the circumstances befalling the woman.
But, it does upset me emotionally so much to suspect, common-sensically, that such a large proportion is undoubtedly caused to simply rectify undisciplined behavior and/or merely foster “lifestyle convenience.”
And this also infuriates me…..
While the number of people waiting to adopt an infant of any description is unknown, Atwood thinks there may be as many as 2 million couples who would be willing to take a newborn into their home–if one were available. Keep that number in mind as you ponder the many abortions in America–1.31 million in 2000, the most recent year for which the Alan Guttmacher Institute has collected statistics. In most cases the lives prematurely ended by abortion experienced that fate because they were deemed–for one reason or none at all, after much agony or upon casual reaction–unwanted. Note also that most abortions prevent the birth of what would have “normal” babies.
http://www.ilchoose-life.org/AllChildrenAreWanted.htm
CS-
My last comment said nothing different than the earlier one. The distincions you see are there only because you force me to address not only the topic at hand, but what you read into commnets, which isn’t there.
It’s always good to understand one another. Understanding does not lead to agreement, however. IMO, pro-lifers are willing to understand and ‘compromise’ – until they get their way. They define when life begins, they define what the role of the pregnant woman should be, and they define what is or is not a moral choice for a family to make.
Until the basics see some ‘compromise’, I see no hope for agreement.
Casual -
You are using the
- all peiple on welfare are irresponsible sponges
- all unwanted pregnancies are the result of loose behavior
type of argument,
Not worthy of a response, IMO
Foster homes are bulging with unwanted children ready for adoption. Tell those people so desperate to adopt, to take as many as they like. Or are they looking for the kind of babies even God can’t guarrantee –
perfect in every way?
christine,
I have never heard of any Catholic teaching that would prohibit the removal of a fetus that had died of natural causes. You are right that the medical term for a miscarriage is spontaneous abortion (the kind that we commonly call abortions are induced abortions). As far as I know, the Catholic church only opposes induced abortions.
If the particular hospital that you are referring to refuses to perform the procedure to remove a dead fetus from a woman after a miscarriage, I have no idea why. But in any event, that is completely separate from the legal issue because any private hospital can perform or not perform procedures according to religious prohibitions or for other reasons. I assume that you wouldn’t want the government to interfere in religion any more than you’d want religion to interfere in government, so even if abortion remains completely legal no one should be forced to perform one if the person has a reason of conscience to not do so.
doma,
casual observer did not make the argument that you are saying that he/she made. If you reread the first paragraph, he/she clearly stated a position in favor of allowing the mother to decide because we have no way of knowing all the circumstances, so that’s certainly not the same as saying that “all unwanted pregnancies are the result of loose behavior”.
If one believes that one side shouldn’t mis-characterize the other then shouldn’t there be a corollary that you shouldn’t mis-characterize your own side as well? CS says that the anti-choice side wants to enact some limitations. This is a wild understatement. A complete ban is not “some limitations”.
In addition she refers to Planned Parenthood like some kind of monolithic national organization. It is not, but rather an association of smaller Planned Parenthood affiliates. And the story she tells certainly doesn’t resemble anything I’ve ever heard from the local affiliate.
“at the same time they don’t really want Roe vs. Wade overturned, or at the very least they want the possibility for a legal abortion to exist”
That describes me and most Americans. Only a tiny fraction of the US public want all abortions banned, including in the cases of rape and incest (the two things you frequently hear that prove conservatives don’t overwhelmingly want an absolute ban, despite the distortion you hear from some).
> The ‘bad law’ argument
> does have backing by
> many, simply because
> the RvW decision has
> turned out to be so
> divisive.
No. It was invalid because it was an especially remarkable example of the judiciary arrogating the role of the legislature and creating what is claimed to be “law” out of nothing but thin air (a description so accurate it is commonplace and a cliche’). Note in particular the “trimester rules”:
“… State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a ‘compelling’ point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
4. The State may define the term “physician” to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. …”
“if there were proper education about sex and *all* the ways to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, then the abortion rate would go down.”
First of all, that education should be provided by the parents. Yes, I know that there are poor parents. But it’s wrong to exhibit an entitlement mentality here and want “someone else” to do something that belongs a family matter. Sex education is part of being a parent (and an adolescent).
But more to the point, in the real world, those most in need of contraception cannot even spell the word frequently, much less be expected to be responsible enough to use it.
> what’s the standard? Viability?
For murder? Yes, to most people (those with souls).
???
> I think a strong argument
> that the Commerce Clause
> covers the Federal Government
> enacting national [federal]
> abortion laws and protections
!!! The Commerce Clause is one of the most abused parts of the Constitution used to rationalize illegitimate federal encroachment into state and local issues.
A private doctor in a town providing an abortion to a woman in that same town is in no way engaging in inter-state commerce!
> she refers to Planned
> Parenthood like some
> kind of monolithic
> national organization.
> It is not, but rather an
> association of smaller
> Planned Parenthood
> affiliates
McAbortions…
Unfortunately for the attempt at snappy humor on the part of DLS abortion is far from the primary service of Planned Parenthood.
In some ways, I think we complicate our understanding of the issues here by trying to find analogies to pregnancy when there are none. Or definitions we often do not need. A fetus is a type of human life that is part of another human’s body. A one day old human fetus is really different from a 3 month old one which is really different from a 8 month old one, just in the same way that an infant is different from a 50 year old. All human. Is there ever a categorical difference between all these ages? That’s what we all worry about the most. Many say there is no categorical difference — there’s just people at different ages — and some say there is a big dividing line. I am not sure. My own inclination is that there is no categorical difference between a 3 month old and a 20 year old.
However, there is one obvious difference that we all agree on, I believe, and that is the fact that for a certain period of human life, the child is part of another person and cannot survive without the other person’s body sustaining their life. (I was about to say “giving them life” which might be biologically accurate, but does not address some religious views of the origin of human life.) In sum, we might all disagree on whether there is a qualitative difference in humans at different ages, but THE defining characteristic of pregnancy is that one life is part of another — and not part of another test tube, but part of another live being. So the question then becomes: when you have a developing life that is part of another person (which is surely the case by all definitions, yes?), does the growing life have the right to the bigger life’s body until it is ready to go out on its own? And, moreover, is this right to the other person’s body powerful enough that we wish to imprison someone for deciding otherwise?
The basic point I am trying to make is that I am not sure we really need to define human life precisely to make our decision on the morality of abortion. Instead, we actually know that a fetus is human and that it is growing inside another human. So what follows? (I think people will disagree with the way I just said this if they have a particular view of what the term human means, i.e., with moral and legal judgments that immediately follow. I am trying to use the term human in the strict sense that there are human fetuses and human infants and human adults.)
pacatrue,
I agree with your points; there really is no exact medical comparison to pregnancy so the arguments about medical privacy (and comparisons to compulsory organ donation or to removal of cancerous tissue) are not analogous to the procedure itself. And the attempt to call the fetus a parasite doesn’t work either (if someone insists on looking at it that way, I think at least one ought to admit that this only means that at birth the ‘parasite’ changes from an internal one to an external one, so if we want to allow killing on the basis of the complete dependency of the fetus then there is no logical reason why that right ought not be extended to infanticide.)