Lila Rose

And this is the big one, right?

Bodily autonomy.

They're totally dependent on the mother.

Therefore, the mother should have the power to end the life of her child in the womb, but only in the womb, not a newborn.

We are all dependent.

in one way or another.

You are dependent, myself, we're dependent on people who we can get food from, right?

And otherwise, if we couldn't get our food, we would die.

A newborn is certainly dependent on his or her parents, and those parents have to use their bodies to care for that newborn or the surrogate adult that they transfer care to.

And an unborn child is totally dependent, completely dependent on his or her mother, but that doesn't change anything.

his or her humanity.

In fact, I would argue that proves the humanity because that's how we all start life.

That is the nature of a human being to be interdependent and to start life totally dependent and often to end life totally dependent.

So when you look at the acronym of SLED, you can see none of these differentiators between an unborn human and a born human mean that there should be less value assigned or a differing legal status.

Both are human and both deserve fundamental human rights.

Well, and I would say, listen, to judge the single-cell embryo as somehow not up to par because they're not at 20 weeks yet or 24 weeks or whatever you put your arbitrary marker for consciousness, I don't think there's any good argument for that.

Of course, consciousness is very special about humans that we eventually develop it, but humans can go in and out of consciousness.

Humans have varying degrees of consciousness.

A newborn clearly has far less consciousness than just, you know, a year later and certainly than an adult.

So I would argue that's a very arbitrary standard.