Understood. I guess my point was to find a way to separate two issues - the baby, and the mother. To a degree, I think each side focuses on one half of the equation and not the other. (I really don't mean to offend anyone; hear me out!)
To me, the argument about a woman controlling her own body is one thing. But where a fetus is viable, my point was that a woman could "control her own body" by giving birth; the destruction of the unborn child is not necessary. That's when the "who's going to take care of it" argument comes in - one I have very little patience with. To me, if you give someone the option of just inducing labor - if it lives, it lives; if not, not - and they still have issues, then it seems to m there's another issue than "controlling one's body."
As for the question about caring for children, we don't get rid of people because they're unwanted. I guess the taxpayer will have to take care of them, like we fund the homeless shelters, AIDS hospices, etc. It's sick that so many in our society see no irony in saying "either you take care of it or let me kill it" and that personal responsibility is not an option. My reference to "culture of life" is shorthand for my hope and belief that thinking about this issue differently will result in fewer people putting themselves in this situation if they do not want a child.
Just some thoughts . . .
Good thoughts.....and if I may, I'd like to add some additional thoughts on the "Controlling your own body" argument.
Absent Rape, a woman decides whether, when, where, with whom, whether to use reliable BC, etc. I see at least 5 points of "choice" or 5 points at which the woman "controls her own body" prior to the conception.
For those who argue that absent the supposed "right" to kill her child, a woman doesn't have "choice" or the "right" to "Control her own body"....well....that argument is specious.
You have a personal right and RESPONSIBILITY to control yourself before the conception. After that....we must consider the baby's right to life.