rcdrury

I agree; however, not necessarily with your chosen illustration. I believe that a student who swaps her approved speech for a strong religious diatribe would be out of line, but simply injecting one's God as a personal motivation as part of one's own success story is absolutely appropriate. Something like that should not be an issue, as it should not be stricken from the speech to begin, but if it were, I would applaud the student for his or her standing up on principle.

Basic biology does not say differently, and the law doesn't say at all. Regardless of whatever euphemistic terminology you wish to apply, the fetus is a biologically complete organism, and it is undeniably genetically human. As far as the rights of rape victims to have an abortion, I did indeed address my feelings on that in a previous post. Rape was one of several examples where I am personally opposed to abortion but where I think it is reasonable to compromise.

But an 8 week old fetus, or a five-second old fetus, is an ENTIRE human organism; not a part of one.

I'd be tempted to respond with "reduce the number of abortions," but there are a lot of other variables at work here. It's not that simple.

Nope; just objective reality.

I never involve my personal moral code in these discussions.

I never claimed to be a spy, and I never worked directly for NSA. I worked for Mike Hayden shortly before he took over NSA. He was commander of Air Intelligence Agency and the director of the Joint Information Operations Center, to which I was assigned. I wasn't a spy, but a program manager. I did in fact run several programs that involved NSA and CIA analysts. As far as my being "wrong," neither you nor anyone else has yet established that; except billvon nailed me on some spelling errors.

Baloney! The only ones of those that could in any way be causal are sex education and birth control; neither of which conserves typically oppose. I say "typically" because there is a very small minority of folks who have issues with them.

Po-tay-to; pa-tah-to. A fertilized egg is a living human organism. Throw in whatever silly term you wish to justify the unjustified selfish murder.

It sure would, but what's you're point. Are you suggesting that a "fetus" is not a living human organism? Even an abortionist MD would not agree with that.

Miscarried children are too; however, they died of natural causes. Not relevant to the discussion.

No; this discussion is about intentionally aborted fetuses. Other than proper prenatal care, we have no control over miscarriages. Please don't play stupid.

Not remotely close to my statement. You're reading in a lot. I've already stated conservatives' strong support for effective social programs.

So, is that how you're going to attempt to discredit my arguments; spelling and semantic errors? Your first statement contradicts itself. It states that "the biological term for a CHILD before it is born is a fetus." You then go on to state that biology "explicitly state[s] that a fetus is not a child before it's born. No, it doesn't; it simply refers to a term describing the prenatal stages of development. There is no specific denial of its status as a child, and certainly not as a human being. I guess you can suggest that genealogy's emphasis is more historical than genetic, but then you're again just grabbing at straws to change the subject. Let's go with "genetics." Now, feel free to give that one your best shot.

Nothing "patriarchal" here; literally hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of women agree.