[grassboots.org]

Grassboots.org- Please reread my post on this. I did and I apologize for misunderstanding. There is a missing notion in your post, however. What you probably assumed is that if people agreed with the first part - they would see the irony in your question. The problem is that most pro-aborts don't deny the humanity of the fetus/unborn child - they make a distinction between hmanity and personhood, It actually does require more for personhood than being a human - to them. I chatted with Tiller the Killer's minister once and asked him when life begins and about children with birth defects. He said the latter would be a "Good shot a humanity". Singer, the animal rights fella believes that adult dogs have more rights than newborn babies and that personhood doesn't begin until well past toddlerhood. If I had noticed your posting name I wouldn't have made the wrong assumption.

[Im4LifeandLiberty]

Thanks!

"The problem is that most pro-aborts don't deny the humanity of the fetus/unborn child"
- You're right, and I argue this differently when I am speaking to pro-aborts. The group I was trying to speak to was the one made up of people who, like Frist, oppose abortion but think IVF, destructive research, and abortifacients are ok, or even "pro-life." This doesn't quite make sense, and I made the points I made (not my best argument, I know), with the awareness that I was talking to Freepers, who I assume are a bit more logical than the average squishy moderate "undecided voter" type. :-) One trait that seems nearly universal on this forum is an impatience with relativistic arguments and Lib-style thinking. Arguing that a baby conceived in the womb must be allowed to live while dissecting in vitro babies for research is this kind of an argument.