"Most abortions--particularly the ones where the woman just doesn't want the baby--are early. And, no, no cute little feet. It really is pink blob." - Uriel

If you reread the article it's point is that in both the late term and early term abortion, the tissue removed is decidely human in appearance.

"The principal difference between the two procedures is a matter of size and quantity, but the removed material is recognizably and shockingly human. For much too long, the pro-choice movement has relied on comforting euphemisms suggesting that early abortions result in nothing more than unrecognizable globs of goo. That was always sophistry; when you see tiny severed legs, arms and other body parts in that tray, it seems like something worse than that."

Now that human appearance is very disturbing to us as humans, however the basic arguments about self awareness and pain used by the prochoice establishment are still valid (or as valid as is possible in a situation that is impossible to test).

The game of uteran contents, and other euphamisims make the procedure endurable, without that thinking our humanity would crush us for supporting the choice of one's life over anothers.

An early abotion (baring profilactic abortive remebies that occur within moments of fertilization) is the termination of a recognizably human creature, though small and undeveloped.

By the time you can pass a pregnancy test the fetus has started to grow and differentiate it's cells. That doesn't make it a fully realized human life scientificly, but what makes anyone a fully realized human life scientifically is still heavily debated by the scientific community.

A 30 year old woman is just a blob of cells as well, but is clearly aware and able to choose for her self, and so her death is considered murder. The blob of cells of a six week gestated genetically female fetus can not be shown to be aware,and so we hope on the side of caution that it is not, because the possibility puts us in an unwinable position of defending the indefensable.

Recognizably primate is more scientifically accurate, I had debated using just that term, however as my point was the emotional aspects of how we interpret things, I felt recognizably human was the appropriate term. There may be little or no differnce between a six week gestated chimp and a six week gestated human, but knowing that what we are looking at derived of humans forces us to see the humanity in its form.

The bottom line is, we are discussing a seperate genetically human creature, and the effort to minimize this fact is likely the core of conflict between moderate prolife and prochoice persons.

It is one thing to aknowledge the necessity of abortion access in a free society, it is quite another to seek to delude ourselves as to what this access truly means. Abortion is the ending of a human life, perhaps one not yet developed to our standards, but a human life none the less. Seeking to declare it less than human, because it is less developed can lead to the sort of logic that pushes the state of humanity further than anyone here is comfortable with.

All anyone should ask with regard to abortion is respect for the gravity of the act, on both sides of the issue.

Really, Halloween Costumes?

I think...just going out on a limb here, that the costume's name is meant as joke, and if anything lampoon the notion of sexy anarexia.

Come on Broadsheet, you used to be cool.

Money is not finite, in fact as my old econ teacher used to say, it doesn't actually exist.

Money saved in a bank or invested in a company, circulates back into the economy. Paying for upgrades, and paying workers, who then spend the money, or save it, or invest it depending on their personal expenses.

If money is in the bank, it's loaned out to someone to buy a house, upgrade their business, etc. If you've ever seen it's a wonderful life, you're money's not in the bank, it's in your neighbor's houses.

The dollars thusly multiply, turning hundreds of dollars into thousands and so on.

Here is where Keith is right, it really doesn't matter whose taxes you cut, cutting taxes allows people to hold onto their money, which they then spend save or invest.

The reason the rich get tax cuts is that their actual contrabution (even when taxed excessivly) to the governments income is realtivly modest. A small cut in middle class taxes has a much more dramatic effect on the government's income than an increase in the wealthy's taxes. There just aren't that many rich people, and they really aren't as rich as you think.

If you cut taxes on the middle class (note the poor pay very little if any taxes in our system, with the exception ofcourse of sales taxes, and other regresive taxes that progressives like for some reason) you will no longer be able to afford to offer services to the poor.

You can increase taxes on the rich, and the middle class, and provide for the poor, but of course, then you are offending a very large voting block to care for a very small voting block, and few politicians are likely to go along with the idea.