"You claim that the distinction between a baby being a bodily function of a woman or not is a matter of Â “ empirical factÂ ” , this is just not so . I think you should rethink what Â “ empirical factÂ ” is . Empirical fact , are facts that are said to be true on the basis of empirical observation . If I see a light on in a room , that is an empirical observation , and for me , that the light is on , is an empirical fact . However , if you and I both empirically observe at a fetus in a womb then the only empirical fact we could both agree on , I think , is that there is indeed a fetus in a womb . I say that fetus is part of a persons body performing a function , you say its something else , and thatÂ ’ s a mater if ideology , not mere observation ."
"So for example if I say `` you are a part of my body , and therefore I have a right to kill you `` , is this simply a matter of ideology ? I admit the distinction is not clearcut at early stages of development , but how do you support the idea that post-birth children are `` a part `` of their mothers ' bodies and therefore legitimate to kill ? It is no more legitimate to say that a fetus is a part of a woman 's body than it is to say that a woman is a part of a fetus ' body . Just as a woman is not a subordinate slave to the fetus within her , the fetus can not be considered subordinate in rights to the woman it is inside ."
"claim distinction , you empirical observation"
"matter of ideology distinction is not clearcut"