We could say it is illogical by pointing out that an 18th-century slave is different from a 21st-century fetus because affording slaves the full rights they deserved as human beings did not undermine the choices, rights or bodily autonomy of another human being.Um... The slave owner might disagree with that. Slave owners felt that granting slaves full rights infringed on what they considered their property rights. Their choice to own another human being is undermined if the human being they want to own has full rights. That brings us back to the question of whether the unborn should have the right to life, a topic O'Brien seems to prefer to avoid.
The simple truth is that when it comes to the issue of abortion, the lack of logic of these shaky claims is not what we should be talking about. We should be talking about the people actually involved in this situation – their rights, their needs and their choices. We should be talking about the woman.O'Brien thinks we should avoid the central questions in the abortion debate: what the unborn are and what their status should be. She would prefer to avoid the question of whether the unborn are "the people actually involved in this situation" and just assume they aren't. Talk about illogical.
Sherry Colb wonders if someone can be both prolife and pro-choice after watching the film 4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days.
The University of Michigan has received a "significant gift" to create a fund which will support both adult and embryonic stem cell research. Shhh....Don't tell the Detroit media, they think embryonic stem cell research is banned in Michigan.