Kenrock-

"No, it is barring any natural or "artificial" intervention."

So, if there is intervention, it isn't? You still seem to be agreeing with me.

" If it's wrong to "terminate" a fetus at 40 weeks, why isn't it wrong to "terminate" it earlier?"

Good question. My thinking is because it could survive outside the womb at that point. At 8 weeks, it couldn't. I'm sure other people could make some excellent arguments otherwise. I'm not saying my way of thinking is the only way. And this seems to be meandering off-topic.

"In any event, your child is not capable of survival without an outside agency, period. So, being inseparable does not equate to not being a human being."

I specifically said that I wasn't addressing the human being part, just the 'whole and separate' part. My son is a part of me on a purely philosophical/spiritual level, but he isn't a part of me in the way that my gall bladder or appendix is. As a fetus, he was. And that is what I meant when I said that a fetus is neither whole nor seperate - before he developed the organs that he now uses every day, he was not whole, and during the time he was developing them, he was not seperate.

"I addressed the second half of your argument by stating that perhaps you could get some traction with the statement that "[y]ou can say that abortion is a horrendous, terrible decision that's a tragedy in every case but sometimes understandable."

Actually, what you said was:

"You can say that abortion is a horrendous, terrible decision that's a tragedy in every case but sometimes understandable, and possibly get some traction that way."

Which suggests that you refuse to consider my second point because you disagree with the first. And you disagreeing with me doesn't make me morally bankrupt or logically flawed.