[mburbank]

I think one of the major problems here lies in semantics. Change our terms and we might change some minds. Suppose instead of 'abortion' we were to think in terms of 'fetal eviction'? Certainly a woman owns the property that is her womb. It is private property. If te fetus is unwanted, this makes it a squatter, an univited tenant who is not paying rent. Surely the law allows for the removal of an unwanted, illegal tenant from ones property. If I found a homeless person had taken shelter in my closet, could I not have the police forciby evict him? Is this homeless persons health and well being my concern, should the government be able to force me to care for him, shelter him? If harm comes to the homeless person as a direct consequence of my having him removed, this is of course tragic, but certainly not my fault.

The homless persons choice to take up residence in my closet (as opposed to the fetus' lack of choice) is immaterial. The law recognizes my property rights . If the homless person were insane and did not activelt choose my closet, would this make me responsible?

I think if Pro Choice folks focused on the concept of Fetal eviction, it would be very hard for at least Republican Pro life forces to disagree.