A very good question is brought up in this article.
The argument that the fetus is attacking the woman. An attacker has to
be the person who caused the action. The fetus did not cause it's own
existence.

A very good question is brought up in this article.
The argument that the fetus is attacking the woman. An attacker has to
be the person who caused the action. The fetus did not cause it's own
existence.

Read the article, it's interesting.


http://www.newsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050918/NEWS01/509180323/1006/NEWS01

Hearings stir local abortion debate
BY HIRAN RATNAYAKE / The News Journal
09/18/2005NEWARK -- The nomination hearings of John Roberts have
stirred renewed debate nationwide about abortion and the legal
precedent set by the decision in Roe v. Wade.

On Tuesday, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., repeatedly asked Roberts about his
stance on the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

Biden accused Roberts of being misleading.

"With respect, they are my answers," Roberts said. "And, with respect,
they're not misleading, they're accurate."

Two days later at the University of Delaware, about 300 students,
faculty, community members -- even campus police -- gathered for a more
open forum at Mitchell Hall. Two professors debated whether or not a
fetus is an intruder who attacks its mother by causing several
biological changes in her body.

Eileen McDonagh, a professor of political science at Northeastern
University in Boston, has written a book in support of this theory,
titled "Breaking the Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent."

All the woman's "blood is re-routed so it can be used by the fetus,"
she said. "It's the [woman's] right to consent to what the fetus does."

But in order to be an attacker, the fetus must be the person that
caused the action, rebutted Katherin Rogers, associate professor of
philosophy at the University of Delaware.

"The fetus did not cause its own existence," she said. "Pregnancy is
not an attack. If you assume that children are intrinsically a very
good thing, every pregnancy is aimed at the same good."

McDonagh, who for the sake of argument assumed that a fetus is a child,
said the fetus takes charge of the woman's body without consent. Even
if it does so unconsciously, it can still harm the woman -- and the
woman should not be required by law to help the fetus live. She added,
"no state even requires a parent to give a pint of blood to a child" to
help it to live.

Rogers argued that "the condition of being pregnant is very different
from being attacked."

Freshman Shane LaCoss said he is pro-choice and came to the debate with
an open mind.

"I've never heard that a fetus is an intruder," said LaCoss, 19, of
Hollis, N.H, about McDonagh's position. "It's a very good argument but
I don't know if it was presented in the best way. I thought the
pro-life's argument was very well put."

Contact Hiran Ratnayake at 324-2547 or hratnayake@delawareonline.com.

A very good question is brought up in this article.
The argument that the fetus is attacking the woman. An attacker has to
be the person who caused the action. The fetus did not cause it's own
existence.