[A Navy Vet]

"The mother has the same rights respecting such a thing as she does having a wart excised. If allowed to persist, the wart will do her harm. If an outside agent forcefully prevents her from removing the wart, that outside agent is doing tort harm. Your claim, like all such claims, is based on the implied sacredness of fetuses, as opposed to warts. This is undemonstrated--it is simply a religious claim, and it only has force for those who believe in it, it a a primary assumption, not a logical deduction."

Yikes! This is what you think of the human fetus? No wonder we can't get anywhere with you. Religious principles aside, most Western philosophers and ideologs see an intrinsic superior value of the human mind over all other things in the known universe. You see the developing human mind as of no more importance that a virus. Communications.......out.

[donh]

Communications.......out.

Fine, I am in the habit of acceding to all such claims. Human mind is supreme--fine. It is still the case that we do, and should, allow people into the moral community as they demonstrate the capacity to exercise moral judgement. No other criteria makes sense, or allows cultures to persist. Rights for cows was tried and failed by the Indus valley civilization.