Head and Neck
Head is erect and rounded. External ear is completely developed. The eyes are closed, but the retina of the eye is fully pigmented. The eyelids begin to unite and are only half closed. Taste buds begin to form on the surface of the tongue. The primary teeth are at cap stage. Bones of the palate begin to fuse. Scalp plexus reaches head vertex.

Abdomen
Intestines begin to migrate from the umbilical cord into the body cavity.

Pelvis
External genitals still difficult to recognize.

Limbs
Upper and lower limbs are well formed. Fingers get longer and toes no longer webbed and all digits are separate and distinct.

Spine, Skeleton, and Muscles
Layer of rather flattened cells, the precursor of the surface layer of the skin, replaces the thin ectoderm of the embryo. Tail has disappeared.aller.

You can go back and forth Philosophically all day as to whether or not a blastocycst should be considered a human being. However, the 56 week stage of development is something that most people can agree is definately a human being and most likely will be carried to full term and birth. It is a good definition that most people could agree on, besides a few extremists of course.

To kill the unborn essentially destroys its own specific la forza del destino.

And that’s one of the reasons, the pregnant person asks the clinician,

"did you get all the body parts out "?

Of course, you’re right Bad, not everyone does recognize abortions as murder.

In California for instance, the California law only considers fetal homicide after 8 weeks gestation but it only counts if someone murdered the mother while pregnant.

So show us how individual human existence begins after 56 days of its actual individual human existence has been bio-marked ?

Shorter Dave: it’s ok to be misleading if it saves me valuable time and energy!

Anti-abortion is a perfectly reasonable description.  Pro-abortion is, on the other hand, grossly unfair.  Pro-choice may be vague, but it captures the actual position of people that want abortion to remain a legal option far better than one that implies that they want people to have abortions as a matter of preference. Pro abortion rights, on the other hand, seems even better. And hardly that clunky.

Put it this way: if you took the extra effort to be evenhanded in your descriptive terminology, it might cost you a little extra time, but you’d probably get a lot more respect from everyone as a reward.

And Kevin, the fact that you think such bizarre substitutions are meaningful arguments to support your unspoken major premise is, well, rather silly of you.  Yes, if you substitute "Final Solution" into just about anything you can make it sound absurd.  But the whole point is that not everyone does recognize abortions as murder, and you don’t get to do an end run around that dispute and then go on to draw all sorts of absurd conclusions about anyone’s depravity or lack of sense.

Bad’s last blog post..Charging For Obama/McCain Lawn Signs: Good! Obsessing About Them: Bad!

and credit is due in this thread, where the debate on Obama’s vote on that abortion bill is about 100 times more substantive than the complete output of RedState on Obama has been for the past year.

His supposed problem is that he was afraid the legislation, without the "neutrality" clause, could be used to overturn RvW.

1) If true, then he cares more about upholding RvW (a contentious issue) than negligant homicide (it’s a pretty safe bet that everyone is against this). Not exactly a plus mark for him.

2) It can’t be true as the Supreme Court doesn’t look at legislation to validate the Constitution, but the other way around.  The only thing that can overturn RvW is a demonstration of faulty reasoning or a Constitutional Amendment.  If the law and the Constitution are in conflict it is the law which get’s changed, not the constitution.
2a) As a conlaw "scholar", Obama ought to know this, if he doesn’t, this would also not exactly be a plus mark for him.
2b) If he does know this and he still voted against it then he must believe that giving the illusion of protecting RvW is more important than actually protecting against negligant homicide.  This would be worse.
2c) If this law demonstrates faulty reasoning, then he should support it as Presidents should be more interested in getting the Constitution right, than in keeping flawed reasoning because it supports his personal preferences.

Call it what you will, but ain’t none of it good.

It is also a defensible position, if not one that I agree with completely, that support for [The Final Solution] is ‘morally depraved,’ indeed that seems to be the basic position of the Catholic Church on the matter.  While one might disagree, just as one might disagree with the desirability of other liberal policies, why would espousing such a view be some sort of crazy syndrome, rather then a legitimate disgreement on moral choices and how they should intersect with public policy?

See what I did there? Now the idea of debate seems patently absurd. I just swapped out the accepted form of genocide for an unaccepted form. Unless, of course, one happens to believe the extermination of the Jewish people a topic of legitimate moral debate. I’m sure there are some out there that feel this way but are we honestly going to give their point-of-view time?

That some people think the issue of abortion is debatable tells me that the issue we should be talking about isn’t the murder of innocence, but the depravity of the human heart.

I find both pro-choice and pro-life to be poor terms, designed to obscure rather than illuminate.  Pro-abortion and anti-abortion are far more descriptive of the actual controversy.  I suppose that pro-legal abortion and anti-legal abortion would be more accurate, but I find those terms too clumsly and I generally don’t think that the shorter ones cause confusion.

In any event, I don’t feel that not supporting the framing each side decides to engage in to be a ‘smear.’

And to be pedantic, which I don’t like to be but you seem to be insisting upon it, I didn’t see anyone saying that Obama WANTED babies to die in toilents, but that he supported a legal situation which allowed babies to die in toilets.  The second assertion seems to an accurate, if certainly negatively framed, description of the facts. 

From what you have linked, Obama did vote against an Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, he said he would have voted for a similar bill in the U.S. Senate had he been a senator when it was passed, but he didn’t vote for the Illinois act because of a key language difference between it and the U.S. senate bill and when he claimed there was a difference, that was an  innaccurate statement.

Nothing you wrote or linked to challenges that basic line of events, indeed without your links I would have known nothing of it.  Presuming that is an accurate description of what happened, then I think it is reasonable for people with a certain moral perspective to conclude that what Obama did is morally wrong and that he did indeed lie  why he voted the way he did.

Of course one could take a more charitable view, that Obama misunderstood or misremembered he reasons and that it wasn’t a lie so much as a mistake, but it doesn’t seem to me that one is required to take the most charitable view of someone, and that if one doesn’t it is some sort of derangement.  Indeed, I would think that always presuming the best motives for a anyone regardless of other evidence or history would itself be a derangment. 

Dave Justus’s last blog post..Russia’s Invasion of Georgia

And even then, being pro-abortion, which Obama is not, is still better than being pro-babies-in-toilets, which is the direct accusation made in the example I gave.

"Glad you finally saw the light."

jodyneel’s last blog post..College Bowl Cool