It isn't a fetus until a few days to after implantation in the uterin wall.  It is a zygote up until that point and a zygote can survive for a short time outside the womb, because it needs to as it awaits implantation during the normal process following natural conception.

I can't speak for all pro-choice people out there but I for one am all for abstinence as the only 100% effective method of birth control.

And I won't deny that some pro-choice groups distort the facts to bring in the cash, but the same can be said about the pro-life crowd.  In fact any group that depends on donations may at one time or another distort things to get more money, look at political campaigns for that as well.

I think I've answered this already, I was a potential life.  I wasn't a life until I was actually born.

You are misconstrueing what I was saying.  A fetus under 22 weeks of gestation can't survive out of the womb no matter what measures are taken to keep it alive.  there is no life support system in existence today that can do that.  However there are life support systems that can keep help them survive after 22 weeks, the further along they are in gestation the better their chances.  After they are born yes they require assistance to live, but with that assisstance they are able to live.  That is part of my distinction between a fetus and a child.

Ok look everyone, it's obvious that I'm not going to change your opinions and you're not going to change mine.  So let's just agree to to disagree and be done with this whole thing as this thread has gotten way out of hand which is why I attempted to avoid this discussion in the first place.

With that, we can all agree.   

The trouble is, even if the precise instant that an egg becomes a 'human' can be determined scientifically (which is itself something of a dubious notion), that won't move us any closer to resolving the Constitutional dilemma.

It's not rocket science to know when life begins.  From a scientific, biological standpoint, human life begins at conception when the sperm from the male fertilizes the female egg.  I know, I know, you don't want to hear this....but it doesn't make it less so.  This is Science.  True Science. 

Once joined the sperm and egg form a new individual human possessing its own unique genetic code.  About 21 days later this new life has a heartbeat.  The chromosomal composition of the newly formed individual remains unchanged whether it is permitted to reach maturity or not.  The DNA is all there and in place. 

I don't have any specific examples of where the pro-life movement distorted facts to get money.  I do know from reading an article a while back that Crisis Pregnancy Centers were using bad data (extremely out dated or just plain false information)  in a lot of the information that they were handing out to essentially con women into avoiding Planned Parenthoods when all the women wanted was birth control advice or assisstance in putting a child up for adoption.

As for Planned Parenhood taking in a lot of money keep in mind that any abortions that they perform are NOT federally funded.  They are paid for by donations and by the individual getting the abortion.  They depend on money from donations for most of what they do from providing low cost birth control to counselling services for women and men alike.  Abortions make up about 10% of the services that they provide yearly.  Not sure if that helps or not.  I really can't speak to their lieing because what you have said is news to me, it doesn't make it wrong it's just news to me.

From my experience PP doesn't go out seeking women to perform abortions on.  In fact when the women come in for the procedure they counsel them to try and desuade the woman from getting the procedure done.  The last thing that PP wants is for a woman to come in and get the procedure only to regret the decision in a day, week, or months later.  That's the difference.

This is news to me.  I'm not denying it, simply stating that this is the first I've heard of PP showing teens how to circumvent laws.  If they are doing that they should be hauled in front of congress to explain their actions.

And again I thank you for the debate on this issue but I know you aren't going to change my opinion on abortion and I doubt I will change yours so we will just have to agree to disagree.

Actually I think it is Brave New World.

Yep, I blew the reference.  BNW it was.

Well Ock, did you read the original blog?  We've made a bit of a turn but not a blind curve here.....much of the discussion starting from the original posting had to do with the President picking a pro-abort VP. 

And while that is just one issue out of many we could have discussed it's the one I picked because it was getting lots of press at the time I wrote this. 

The issue is important to me because as a pro-lifer I believe abortion is murder.  So when I choose my next President I prefer to choose one who doesn't have blood on his hands. 

Obama is extreme in his pro-abortion views even to the extent that he has a history of backing any movement that would limit a doctor or nurse from assisting a baby born alive as a result of a botched abortion.  I read this from an article called Obamicide showing how deep Obama really goes with this issue. 

"Although Obama's love affair with partial-birth abortion has served to chip away at his finely polished veneer, his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) has revealed to the world that backward extremism permeates his marrow.
 
BAIPA very simply requires that when a baby survives an attempted abortion – when she is "born alive" – further attempts to kill her must immediately cease, and steps must be taken to ensure her health and well-being.

During his recent "not-ready-for-primetime" appearance at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback forum, Obama was asked at what point "a baby gets human rights."  His answer was shocking:  "Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade," said Obama.
 
What?!  Above my pay grade?  And this man wants to be the leader of the free world?  Even the most ardent pro-abortion wactivist would have likely said that a baby gets human rights as soon as it's born, right?  But Obama couldn't say that.  His opposition to Born Alive proves he doesn't believe it.  And if he had said it, he'd have been called on it."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=229976
 

Are not most people?  After all, it is why we outlaw murder.

Well, duh.  There ya go with the religious argument again.  Since there will never be a way to make this a legally 'apples to apples' comparison, equating abortion with murder is a religious position.  A perfectly acceptable and admirable religious position, BTW, one that those who espouse should abide by.  I've said all along the conundrum is a Constitutional one, not a moral one.

I have purposefully avoided the religious aspects of the debate.  I merely said that I found most people to be pro-life.  I fail to see how that is religious.

When you assigned religion to my post.  I am very comfortable in my faith, and very set on this issue.  But I have learned not to debate the issue as it is akin to beating ones head against a brick wall.  I will discuss it around the issues of biology and science, and even nibble at the edges with semantics.  But I choose not to get involved in the religious aspect for personal reasons.  I was just pointing out that my response was not based in religion (and at the same time taking a tongue in cheek tweak at the title of pro-life).

One can be gay without being a homosexual.  And one can be pro-life and still support abortion.  Terms are being co-opted by special interest groups for pc purposes, and that I do take umbrage with.

I like the capitalized NOW.  Perhaps women can drag that organization back to its purpose instead of being toadies for philandering democrats.

Ha, I hadn't seen your prediction KFC.  You done good!  Sarah Palin is a winner for McCain.