seep

I think that makes sense.

"if the fetus isn't "life", then what it is?"

Eh, I'll go with what the above posters are saying about this.

Well, that and the fact that life isn't platonic and neatly divided into discrete categories. That's something that comes up in a lot of areas, I find...

But my real answer (which I believe no one else has offered) is: who fucking cares? I don't have a problem with taking mental vegetables off of life support either, murdering bastard that I am. I don't shed tears over anything with the IQ of sea algae, sorry, and unless you're buying into airy concepts like "souls" which are magically injected into zygotes upon formation there's no need to.

But I'm off the topic now.

I remained unswayed from my position in the original post: if a fetus is basically a baby, I don't see how you can argue around special cases of rape (or incest, which I forgot about). It doesn't matter whose rights have been violated or whatever, you're still committing murder. I can't see any way to reconcile this.

And again, the thought that keeps coming back to me is this: pretty much nobody seriously considers abortion on the same level as murder, and these really tough special situations basically call people on their bullshit. It's pretty easy to to talk down to a woman that had a condom break on her (or whatever) but when the woman is clearly a victim critics hastily get off of their high horses.

And now that I think about it, what's the deal with the incest exception? Assuming the incest was voluntary (otherwise it would fall under "rape") who are we trying to benefit here? To every pro-lifer who makes an exception for incest, would you make an exception for non life-threatening mental retardation?

[edited out of respect to the intelligence of bugs ]