[Lexinom]

Yeah, well, the burden of proof is for Justice Stephens and those of his ilk to demonstrate tangibly some fundamental, ontological difference between a baby, ahem, fetus "4 or 5 inches long" and a "fully formed baby."

At what moment, exactly, does the state of the entity in question morph from non-human, non-person, non-child, to human, person, child? Until they can demonstrate that, our laws are not reflecting the natural and rational default position - that the entity is as much a person-substance at one cell as it is at one trillion cells.

Does that make sense? Anyone?

[MHGinTN]

Too much sense for the liberal dementia of the subpremes Stephens, Ginsberg, & Breyer. They have an agenda to uphold and prefer to ignore truth or the inalienable right to not be murdered while sequestered in the womb or a petri dish.

[Mr. Silverback]

At what moment, exactly, does the state of the entity in question morph from non-human, non-person, non-child, to human, person, child?

In a letter to the editor, a local cheerleader for abortion wrote that only the pregnant woman can choose whether "to birth the life inside her." Her mistake--in a followup letter I asked, "Is that human life, or do you figure it’s a fish, or a monkey?"

I got phone calls for days about that letter, every one of them enthusistically positive. Heh-heh!