>>386 I approve, not that my approval is of objective value for anyone. Anyway, I want to supplement by saying that until a case for martial law, aka an extreme contingency can be proven, no human right can be valued over another - they are all prerequisites of another, and the denial of one for any individual is an attack for all her landspeople. Now, a woman's state as a human is a fact, while not all foetuses/embryos/cancers/what-EVUUURRRRs are humans. At any given time, there will be more women than foetuses, and we can't protect the rights of both nor can ve value one right over the other (there is no adequate human life without control of one's body). So we make a utilitarian choice - because we have to. Robbing Gates is also a utilitarian per se (but this would not be a choice forced on us), but because we don't *have* to make a choice between *his* birthright OR the birthright of *two or more* humans, we have to protect his birthright first and foremost. Your analogy just is not comporting with the choice we have to make here.