Bartikus wrote:Only a woman who decides to carry full term can be considered a mother of a child whereas a woman who decides to abort cannot...she remains just a host to something else? That about right?
I've never made meantion of what other's may concider the woman as, I've only commented on the investment into the mother identity of the woman.
You can concider her what you like, it's really of no consequence.
Bartikus wrote:
That's a social theory alright!
Concider the alternative: The mother identity is simple social congruency to the biological relationship. That is to say that a woman who gives up her child for adoption is more of a mother than the individual who adopts and raises the child.
My social theory is that the individual who adopts a child experiances a similar investment into the identity of mother (assuming it's a woman). This facsimile experiance can be equally profound and gives the adopting parent the title of "mother" despite never being host to the child in utero.
Bartikus wrote:
Do you think unsuspecting women who decide on abortion will realize the pro choice camp regard them and their unborn differently....simply because of the choice they make?
Yours is the camp of judgement. I'm just saying that a woamn can veiw her unborn as she sees fit. My theroy is that once a woman choses to keep the unborn, the identities of "mother" and "child" begin. I also believe this is the point where personhood begins to be established.
My theory is also congruent with the idea that a pregnant woamn who is killed and therefore her unborn is terminated as well would count as two criminal acts. The woman having chosen to keep the child has provided personhood of the unborn, and thus given the first rights as custodian.
T
K
O
