Unfortunately Manny that is where we try to be with many things. There are competing interests and a representative society tries to avoid extremes and find a middle ground, even when it is patently ridiculous to do so.
We claim a right to privacy for mothers wishing to obtain an abortion. To do so we have to negate every humans inherent right to life. So we claim that a fetus is no longer human and entitled to any of the normal protections associated with just being alive. But try killing some fetilized eggs on an endangered species list........
So now what? We have to resolve all these are associated issues, often in absurd ways. For example, what happens if you kill or injure a pregnant mother? Is it simple assault, or an additional murder if it involves the "fetus."
Do women actually possess some "right to privacy" that gives them complete control over their bodies? If so what about prostitution laws. It is ok for a mother to have her child aborted, but not sell her own kidney? Why are there no privacy rights there. And if she is in sole responsible care of her body, then what should paternal responsibility in that situation be. A woman can kill "our" child without input from you or I, but if she decides to keep it all of the sudden I have these "obligations" to her for support? If it is her decision, then let "her" deal with the consequnces.
I am not claiming to share any of these beliefs, but they are legitimate points of contention.
Society has a basic interest in furthering policies that help it prosper and perpetuate, even at the expense of some indiviudal freedoms. Single parent home are decidedly and demonstrably not in societies best interest. Quayle was right, Murphy Brown was an idiot.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
