In response to Shane Krouse's article, "Fetus not living until it exits womb, born" (SN 2/8), I began to question my opinion on this timely debate. Although I still remain pro-choice, I have recently been able to better understand the decision to join the pro-life platform.

For instance, I began to realize that men are ultimately always disconnected from this issue. However, it has occurred to me that both a man and a woman are necessary for conception.

Not just now of course — I have known this for a while.

Therefore, the expected baby is rightfully both the man's and woman's. Whether or not this allocates to an equal 50-50 ownership of the baby is math that cannot easily be solved.

Then, after reading Krouse's letter, I immediately began to question his logic. He proposes that what is living inside a woman's womb is not a "human" because it cannot survive on its own. He said, "fetuses cannot support themselves — they rely on the mother for nutriment."

This led me to a question: Can a one-day-old newborn survive on its own? Or even given three years of life experience, could a three-year-old survive on its own?

I believe that in both situations, these young children would find death before survival.

No offense to those ambitious readers of just-born to three-years old, of course. This means it is unfair to justify killing a fetus because it cannot survive on its own, while pretending that infants are capable of such activity.

In the end, we realize that age is an inappropriate tool for measure in regard to survival.

It would be unfair to categorize those living inside the womb as non-human because they require assistance to survive, while categorizing newborns as human and forgetting they obtain the same assistance from their mothers, just at a different location.

Matt Benjamin
social relations junior