Of course a fetus is a "human being." It's a) human, not animal, and b) a "being," --as in, living, alive, as in "if it weren't alive, you wouln't have to kill it.' The illogic is on Bazelon's side and the so-called "pro-choice" side. The "choice" is to kill. The necessity is to a) take action and b) to stop the growth of an entity. This is the very definition of life. As for your contention that the Sup. Ct. has instructed the states not to decide "when life begins," the fact is, it never ends. It's simple biology, not, as you say, ideology or theology. Again, it's human, not animal, and if it weren't alive, you wouldn't have to take action to stop it's growth. Most Americans have faced this reality, and support restrictions on abortion. They see the illogic and intellectual dishonesty in the pro-choice argument. It's time for you to do so, too.

How about the simple pro-choice argument that a women should have the right to KILL what is living inside her body. This means she can order chemo to KILL cancer cells or she can have an abortion to KILL the fetus (or whatever anyone wishes to call it).

I'm pro-choice for this simple reason. But I do agree with you that many on the pro-choice side do use bogus arguments.

Anyhow, I'm hoping this law does NOT decrease the number of abortions since I'm also pro-abortion. The less babies born to women that done want babies the better!

this is where the typical liberal with only a novice's understanding of biology falters with overly simplistic logic. a cancer cell is of an organism. a fetus is a separate organism growing inside another.

A separate organism?

Well if it is so separate than it can survive without the help of the host body.

Sorry if a women wishes to KILL this organism or any organism living inside her body, separate or not, I'm OK with granting her that wish.

As far as I know both sides say 'it' is for termination of the human reproductive process after it begins a certain function.

What is your point here? I'll willing to admit that an abortion may be killing a human being, but I'm still pro-choice. I'm willing to allow the women to decide what 'it' is all about.

The talk has been to as what is an abortion. Both sides, if claiming to be a Christian, think they are religiously correct.

My point is that both these sides don't seem to know what 'it' is or what 'it' is to the US government.

and a newborn is able to take care of itself? leave a baby in a well lit, temperate room surrounded by food and it will die. it is utterly helpless. the umbilical cord is simply replaced by a nipple post partum.

i will concede that you are consistent in your views if you believe that a woman's right to abort is absolute all the way until birth.

The confusion you describe is primarily on the anti-choice side because their BELEIF is not supported by any science or fact based rubrik.

You do hit the nail on the head by pointing out what matters is the context of all of this within the scope of action by The Government.

And that is why it doesn't matter whether or not the fetus is a "human being" because Am 13 limits The Government's power to force a woman to carry to term involuntarily even if the fetus is "a person" from the moment of conception.

Why does this matter? The Government is precluded from compelling a woman to carry to term against her will whether or not the fetus is a person, and all that matters is what The Government's has the power to regulate.

BTW your reasoning fails, because a newborn can breathe on its own, vacate itself, and in the presence of nutrition, consume that nutrition.

In utero, you coud oxygenate the amniotic fluid all you want and the fetus would not be able to breathe nor vacate itself, ane even if the amniotic fluid provided nutrition it would not be able to consume that.

So by this logic your bed is filled with "human" "beings" and you kill millions of them every time you sleep.

After all, skin cells have been shown to be pluripotent, and thus separating them from their growth support is killing "human" "beings".

Of course its silly to suggest that simply going to bed is the equivilent of murder.

so please explain how your claims differ from that - SCIENTIFICALLY and BIOLOGICALLY.

BTW in the end it doesn't matter because Am 13 precludes The Goverment from compelling a owman to carry to term anyway.

Please explain how a baby less than, say 6 months old, could feed itself?

On that count I believe you have overstated your case. But you always find some cleaver way to make a solid comeback.

Anyhow, we agree that the government should stay out of this issue!

a 6mo old slurps and swallows. So put it in a pile of semiliquid food and it will eat.

Sorry pal, that would be one dead baby!

Put it in a pile of semiliquid food. That is so funny (or sick) I cannot stop laughing!

Depends on how deep it gets :-)

Yeah I had a laugh at the vision of a baby squirming around in a pile of semiliquide browning banana sludge slupring in at one end and "ejecting" out the other end