UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

pregnancy against her will is not entitled to choose an abortion...so, I'll go with that. Now, onto your claimed justification...

First off, "Personhood" is entirely relevant...and multiple state legislatures' trying to enact "Fetal Personhood" laws testifies to that fact. (See AP article attached)...yet, as I've shown you, neither the RCC, Secular Humanists, nor Federal Law confers "Personhood" on a fetus, which means that the ONLY PERSON involved in this debate is the WOMAN who was impregnated against her will...a woman who has the legal right to protect her own body from physical and/or mental harm for the rest of her life...just as nations that are attacked unfairly have a right to defend themselves.

Furthermore, from a strictly biological perspective, a forced/coerced pregnancy is simply a Violent Biological Attack on the woman, who should have the right to reject it, if she so chooses. The sperm that was introduced was "uninvited", and since her egg can't reject it, then it's up to her to make that decision. Can I make this any clearer to you?


Link: https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-government-and-politics-constitutions-93c27f3132ecc78e913120fe4d6c0977#:~:text=But%20personhood%20proponents%20argued%20that,equal%20protection%20under%20the%20law.