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.

I totally agree; but again, this discussion isn't about HER body.

They don't give a shit? Incorrect; they care greatly, they just realize that some things are not rightly within the government purview, and that some things that sound good simply aren't. Universal healthcare: I am a behavioral economist who deals with healthcare funding issues for the bulk of my work week. Univeral healthcare is only viable where it exists because it is effectively subsidized by the American medical community that has been at least partially responsible for every major medical advancement over the last century; and by the American people who rely on and support that system. The moment health care is "free" in the US, it ceases to be viable anywhere on the planet. With the exception of education, each of the items you named, including health care, is a simply a consumer good; nothing more. Conservatives are strong advocates of a viable, responsible safety net for all of them; however, we do not endorse counterproductive handouts that make people unnecessarily dependent upon the state. As for education, the left has completely taken over. They own all of those problems.

No; they're just not relevant to the discussion. Prolifers are absolutely for prenatal and fetal health, but some simply don't make it. It's an unfortunate reality. But nice try.

Not even close to true. No party or political entity is stronger in its support for viable and responsible social programs designed to get people back on their feet and self-reliant.

Great question! I am absolutely one of those "true believers." I would endorse abortion of a viable pregnancy under any circumstances, but I can certainly compromise my position regarding legislation. I consider compromises surrounding rape, incest, life of the mother, and such to be quite drastic, but I would be willing to make them out of a sense of fair play. So much for the "extremist" allegations.

So, quite possibly several months after birth. Got it. [eyeroll]

I have no problem with that, as long as due process is exercised.

All great points; and all irrelevant as to the "fetus'" biological standing or right to live. Let's address all of them; but let the innocent child live in the meantime.

Hey, works for me!