I appreciate your response. But...

"I used to feel exactly the same way when I was younger."

and

"My son was born exactly three months ago. I can confirm as a matter of fact for you that he was alive and well four months ago in his mother's womb. You will not find many people in Society who would agree with the idea that there is not a living being inside the womb anywhere late in a pregnancy."

I am 40, with a 3.5 year old and a 11 month old. P{lease don't presume that your life experience is any different than mine, nor hat having had a child give you, or I more rights to decide this for others. Regarding viability of the fetus, Please read my previous post - I don't care

" When a pregnant woman is murdered, routinely the murderer is convicted of two homicides."

THis is relatively new tact in the procecution of homicides, and one that I think has been pursued by the right as a back door way to have the fetus be called life. Before, while the killing of a pregnant woman garnered more sympathy, it did nor count as two deaths.

"As a physician, whenever I have a pregnant patient I am held civilly and even criminally responsible if any of my actions harms the unborn child."

Because you, as the outside party, is inflicting harm. And this is why women who harm their own fetus' have their kids taken away, often. This does get complicated, and leads into the next point....

" By your argument this should not happen since the unborn have no "rights" and deserve no recognition or protection. This in essence is the inconsistency that those who simply see abortion as a woman’s "choice" issue need to come to grips with. "

I agree, it is very complicated. I guess, in my mind, deliberate harm to the fetus without intent to abort is bad, and tantamount to tourture, but abortion is ok. I know this seems hypocritical, but not to me.

Years ago, when a baby came out all fucked up in one way or another, parents made a decision, try to care for it, or let it go. Some went one way, some another. It was their choice. Now, the government wants to get invovled.

Largely, this is because science has moved us ahead of our moral ability to deal with it. Now, we can tell if a baby is going to suffer some debilitating condition like downs, spina bifida, or being red sox fan. Ok, maybe not that last one, but soon, very soon....

We, as a society, in my opinion, need to be less obsessed with death and dying badly, and more focused on life, and living well.

"Anyone who honestly believes that it's only the woman's "choice" that matters at all times has never seen a 5 pound baby extracted from a woman and left in a bloody bucket to die."

Red. Herring. Should removing a tumor also be illegal because it is gross?

"The comparison to voting rights for minorities is irrelevant since those are enumerated rights in the Constitution for all individuals. I'm afraid there really is no "right" to an abortion on demand in the Constitution."

Please check the constitution. All the above rights had to be added by amendment, and after years of struggle at the local level.

"Why are you so afraid of Freedom?"

You must be a Bushie. Only the radical right uses this kind of language in lieu of actual arguments

Again and again and again

First you, Squiggle - We have had this discussion before

"Sin taxes are inefficient, mean, unfair and immoral."

NOTA.

Very efficient (what could be inefficient?)

Mean? Waah waah waah

Very fair, tax those who use to fund programs against use, and heath care for users

Immoral? WHat the fuck are you talking about?

Sugarman -

Believe me, if we could turn back the clock and outlaw tabacco, knowing what we do now, I would. I put coke in the same catagory. But in todays world, that is not possible, so lets tax cigs to reflect their true cost on society. Alcohol, too, I think should be taxed higher.

Pot, Unlike coke or cigs, has minimal heath reprocussions (Lower usage)(I know that will get some responses) and should be made legal, and taxed - what a moneymaker that would be

The reason that Halliburton was "the only one able to bid" on many of these contracts is that KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, was invited in, by Bush 1, to write that conditions of the contract.

Lo and behold, Halliburton was the only contractor that was qualified to bid

"Overall, sixty-two percent of Americans could volunteer the name of Barack Obama. Twenty-eight percent remembered that John Edwards is running, but no other Democrat cracked the double-digit barrier. "

SInce clearly HRC got more responses

Were only Republicans polled?

This, from a story on NPR this morning:

"David Paulison, a former firefighter who now heads the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said the government has come a long way since the last time thousands of Americans were forced to take shelter in a football stadium.

"Somebody asked me earlier, 'What was the difference between what happened in Katrina and what's happening here today?' What we learned after Hurricane Katrina [was] we have to work together. We have to be organized," Paulison said."

It took Katrina to show that they had to work together and be organized? If they didn't learn it then, I doubt they will learn it now. This administration don't do too good at that there learnin' thing.

What a bunch of pandering, hat-in-hand, self-serving boilerplate