In one case, the fetus is still connected to the mother, drawing nourishment from her body, disposing of its waste through her body, at this point adding several pounds of weight to her body, and so forth.
In the other case, the infant is a free living individual who in no way is parasiticing anyone else's body. Requiring the mother to occasionally pick it up and stick a bottle in its mouth in no way compares to "hooking the kid up" physically to anyone's body, and it's even possible to find someone else to take over these duties.
Perhaps you don't see an essential difference here, but I don't think I can help you here. All I can point out is that to me, this is the essential difference.
I should also point out that, leaving aside these abstract arguments, in real life if a pregnancy gets to the ninth month and then a termination is being considered, it's because some very serious complications have come up that threaten the health or life of mother or child.
If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.
They provided means for changing whatever doesn't keep pace with changing times you know...
Yes, they recognized that so why don't you?
... their insights were timeless, built on centuries of trial and error.
Well, no. They built their democracy more or less from scratch. They could see what didn't work when despots did it but they were less certain about what would work. Hence, the possibility of, and need for, change.
Despite pretenses to great changes, there really is "nothing new under the sun" and we need to recognize that.
You contradict yourself. Remember when you said, "They provided means for changing whatever doesn't keep pace with changing times"?
You and the other "progressives" here are courting anarchy and chaos and the complete breakdown of society.
No, we're advocating "changing whatever doesn't keep pace with changing times."