You're dodging whether or not "it" is human. By your logic, the woman who carries the child should be able to kill the infant after it's born, too, since it's still her responsibility, especially if the pathetic man ran away.
Furthermore, the mother can conceivably run away too; from unprotected sex or by offering the child up for adoption once delivered; certainly a difficult albeit noble choice, considering the waiting list for healthy newborns is 100 couples to one available child. But of course, asking for responsibility for the taking life from those who, fairly or not, are biologically the most duty-bound, is tantamount to throwing women back to the dark ages.
And, if one has the means, a U.S. citizen can (and they do) go to, say, Thailand, and have sex with 3 six year old boys at once; should we then legalize child prostitution in the US as well? Simply because there are those who would subvert the law?
We've always had abortion, it's true, but condoning it, indeed often endorsing it, has clearly had graver consequences still.
Date: Monday, October 06, 2003 7:51:06 PM
Subject: Re: OT or OT? politics/Bush, et.al.
Need I mention that this party also defends partial-birth abortion as somehow medically necessary? In
2. A woman with resources could go to Canada or elsewhere.
3. It is the woman who carries the child. It is her body. It is ultimately her responsibility, as the man can run from them both; ergo, it must be ultimately her decision.