[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I think what DS is saying is that, *if* the pro-abortionists' claim boils down to "I can do what I want with my body (including any life form attached to my body against my wishes)," then logically that claim no longer applies once the fetus is alive and well and is no longer a part of a woman's body.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well duh if its not part of their body then nothing follows when its not part of their body.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, who has ownership of my appendix after it is removed? Are you saying I have no rights to it once it is removed from my body?

[/ QUOTE ]
No but whatever rights you have are not because its part of your body (coz it isn't any more). We own plenty of things that aren't part of our bodies.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. So we still own our body parts once they are removed, right? That's because we owned them prior to their removal, right? Or are you saying otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying otherwise but it is the question isn't it. Does a woman own the fetus once its removed? if not what why not?

That's the issue here. Despite claims that its a matter of logical errors, it isn't. Its just a matter of the status of the fetus.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So if I'm following this correctly:

-The fetus became the woman's exclusive property the moment it was conceived inside her body.
-The woman continues to have exclusive ownership of the fetus after it is removed (without being terminated).
-Therefore, the woman has the exclusive right to terminate the fetus (now outside her body) as long as it does not become human (since the moment the fetus becomes "human," it owns itself).

OK thus far?