It is perhaps a step too far in what-if-ness (wonderful phrase) but what I'm trying to determine is when exactly we are talking about two beings rather than one being - and I appreciate this is a deeply complicated philosophical question with no easy answer. If we are to confer absolute bodily autonomy and presume these are one being whilst joined, then it would follow that this one being has control over all aspects of itself. If itself happens to contain another consciousness that is neither here nor there. A foetus, (or even a fully formed baby in utero) is in essence parasitical and has legal rights equivalent to a tapeworm. What I think you've not done is defined when this thing becomes 'a child' rather than a foetus.... and that's at the heart of this conversation - and yes, I am being somewhat eristic but that's in the nature of my being and it's enjoyable to read a comments section filled with complicated well thought through and nuanced ideas from time to time.

If you haven't read my other abortion articles to get a more detailed understanding of where I sit on this debate then I'd recommend doing so. I'm not convinced the 14th amendment was the right argument to make, but I do firmly believe it is the best moral position to take. That's difficult because there are plenty of people who fundamentally disagree and the democratic process is having to sort this mess out. In the meantime, denying a 10 year old rape victim an abortion is a moral crime so heinous that I can't even get my head around it well enough to put my thoughts to paper (or digital paper at least).

My second article argues for civil disobedience and widespread rejection of the prevailing Conservative Christian viewpoint - but such an argument has to come from liberals and moderate christians alike - it isn't enough to simply run around screaming like the world is ending, which has been the democrat position so far.