...any more than a seed is a flower. However, a 34 week old fetus in utero is an awful lot like a slightly premature baby in an incubator.

The first, legal, problem is that personhood can only be recognized via one of two methods: the occurance of an event (conception, birth, some arbitrary point inbetween) or the evaluation of a capacity (can it breathe on its own? is it viable outside the uterus?). These are poor approximations of the stages of fetal/postnatal development, which from the post-blastocyst embryonic stage through term--and past it--is a fairly smooth process in which various systems "come on line."

The second, philosophical, problem, is that while the vast majority of antichoice activists remain comfortable with definitions that conflate all prenatal stages into "personhood," from fertilized egg (or even before) through term, most prochoice activists start getting quite uncomfortable with the idea of NOT seeing that a fetus approaching term is more like a baby than a blastocyst barely implanted in the uterine wall. That's because most antichoice activists are absolutists, and most prochoice activists aren't.

The intersection of these problems is that the law deals better with absolutes than with shades of gray.

Here's the upshot: things are going to get worse before they get better. Be prepared for another Underground Railroad kind of network. And hope that without Roe v Wade the GOP blitzkrieg eats itself.

It really sounds as if the movie is less an adaptation than an extended riff on the same ideas, using the book as a motif and backdrop but little else.

Which is, in this case, only appropos. After all, there really isn't much IN the book to adapt, in the usual sense of the word.

On a side note, I once bought the much-maligned "Great Books" series because it was the cheapest way at the time to actually acquire a lot of the books I wanted hardback copies of. When they updated it to drop Sterne and pick up some Austen, I somehow managed to get the update for free...and dutifully inserted Sterne's book where it should have remained. He's that good, and that important. And most importantly, he's not Richardson.

As others have pointed out, since the current software forces us to use our handle to access the feature anyway, what we type in the message body for a "signature" is so much meaningless cheese. I don't know any of you from Adam anyway, and neither do (one hopes in most cases) the people who run this site. Moreove, seeing your names won't make your opinions any more or less valid.

Sure, there are abuses possible when posting anonymously. But there are also benefits, not only the ones people have mentioned (people will share more about themselves when their name isn't attached) but also one we may not want to face: fewer anonymous trolls means more conformity of opinion. If we don't see the "inner Neaderthals" once in a while, what is to stop us from becoming a pointless echo chamber reflecting those on the right?

My other observation is that the discussions here fall between blog comments and actual LTTE columns precisely because there is a mix of styles and attitudes present. Usually that mix is healthy. What you're describing seems rather bland by comparison.

Just sayin'.

...than the restaurant owner, who is at least for the time being constrained to follow civil rights laws that affect public accomodations, would be a server at a restaurant who wouldn't serve anyone of non-Aryan descent.

Although my personal fave is the idea of a Quaker cop who refuses to carry a weapon being protected against discrimination. When you put it that way even some fruit bats will listen.

...of having 10-15 GOP lawmakers under indictment, courtesy of Abramoff et al squealing to save themselves. I guess that's insufficiently wave-like.

If a child is too young to spell the reason for which they have been suspended, it probably isn't a great idea to suspend them for it. To be honest, it's hard for me to imagine ANY bona fide reason to suspend a six-year old child. But then, when I was six, a trip to the office was viewed with the same level of fear as a firing squad.

To a large extent. Or had. Last year my sister, widowed ten years now, married an intelligent, well-spoken, outgoing man who happened to be black.

Watching the dynamics at this year's Xmas get-togethers was informative...and encouraging. Sometimes habits are ingrained, and sometimes all it takes to break them is a dose of reality.

To the LW:

1) it is possible to stand up for your principles without starting fights with all but the most deranged group of family members. Cary's admonition to take the high road is correct, insofar as it does not involve people who are dangerous.

2) it is also possible to love someone, especially family members, and still be ashamed of their behaviors and attitudes. Perhaps your BF does not challenge the behavior because he feels alone, too alone to try to make a difference.

3) in my experience, you can ONLY change attitude by changing behavior first. As it is written: we are who we pretend to be.

...but did anyone else immediately think of that segment in "Everything you Always Wanted to Know About Sex" with the giant, lab-grown, mammoth breast rampaging across the countryside?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Please return to your previously serious discussions.

But thanks. :)

I am curious as to what about a breast makes it easier to grow as a separate organ than say, a heart or a spleen. It seems if anything less self-contained.

If you look for it. Andrew Leonard, Patrick Smith, the occasional super science wonk article (such as the Nanolife one)...

But I've learned to stop reading anything personal set in NYC or LA. I can get that stuff out of every glossy rag on the newsstands.