When I wrote that emotion laden words were not an argument against abortion rights, contrary to what Elizabeth implies, I was not denying any of the facts regarding fetal life. Rather, I was highlighting the fact that this type of argument is meant to evoke emotions and ignores the fact that a fetus is physically a part of another human. The same argument applies to those who equivocate between baby and fetus, as referenced in Tim's post. Until a fetus is individuated, it has no claim to rights.

Regarding Adolf Hitler's anti-choice stance and self-professed Catholicism, I grant Kara that Hitler is an aberrant example and a case that is difficult to entangle. However, I do believe that anyone who elevates something (e.g. the state, god, etc) above the individual and advocates sacrifice in its behalf is, in effect, setting the stage for the violation of individual rights. Nazi Germany, Calvinist Geneva, and the Taliban's Afghanistan are examples of this phenomenon. Despite what Lisa Weisenstein writes, the philosophy animating Hitler and the philosophy of those who would dictate to a woman what she may do to her own body share many obvious similarities. While one advocates sacrifice for the Aryan Race and the other advocates sacrifice for the unborn, they both result in the destruction of individual sovereignty.