I'm always saddened by the number of anti-choice people who really cannot but sport a holier-than-thou attitude when talking to those who think differently. Of course, they can mention that there are many holier-than-thou pro-choicers too, so in a sense maybe they do deserve each other. Oh, how I wished people could simply sit with those who think differently and talk!...

By your reasoning, why is the death of a pregnant woman any more tragic than the death of any woman -- or any person -- especially if you consider her fetal child as "unviable" except by extraordinary medical means, or simply a mass of cell jelly?

Because she was a woman with a dream that was already in the process of becoming true, and this dream was taken from her by her killer.

It wasn't a fetus yet. But that doesn't change your argument, does it? I think the obvious answer is that nobody thinks it's just a mass of cell jelly (which it isn't by the way), just that it isn't a person. You may disagree, but there's no need for snark and false condescendence.

"Fully realized" human beings (whatever that means) aren't viable without air, water, food, shelter, safety, love. And yet I think we'd be hard pressed to find abortion rights advocates advocating for the withdrawal of these things from an adult simply because that adult is unwanted or a burden to society or whatever. Life is life is life.

Sperm cells and ova are also viable if you give them 'what they need'--i.e. ova and sperm cells, respectively. Yet even you (I presume) wouldn't hesitate to declare sperm cells and ova non-human-beings.

As I said in my previous post, you need to draw a line somewhere, because nobody, not even you and the anti-choicers, wants to include the whole human process in the legal definition of a human being. You're just quibbling about where to draw the line, but a line you will draw, just like everybody else.

language (euphemistic or otherwise) that seeks to dehumanize people at the beginning stages of life risks to render all human life expendable and at the whim of whoever happens to wield the power.

But the whole point is defining a person, bestillandknow, and we need to define, since sperm and ova aren't people even by your definition even though they could be (using your terms, all they would need is 'the right environment' and voilà, they become full-fledged adult humans in due time).

All your emotions are probably real, but they actually say nothing about the underlying question of when a person begins to be a person. Scientifically, it has to be with the sex cells. But legally this can't be. Hence the tragedy of legal humanity.

And we just have to live with it, of course. Who else is going to treat us as well as the Democrats? All the alternatives are worse, and we can't try independence. We're too weak to go out and defend our own interests; we just need to wheedle the Democrats into paying more attention to us.

Pre-CISE-ly.

The main point is: it's the same thing for all other groups. And no, they can't all bundle up together because (a) they don't agree with each other sufficiently much and (b) to the extent that they agree, any union between them would end up being just like the Democratic Party.

Welcome to the wonderful world of representitive democracy.

And still change can be achieved, and things can get better--if you're willing to put in the work and think long term. Just compare the situation of all groups today, including women, with what it was like 30, 40, 50 years ago (cf. Mad Men).

Change is slow.