You can say that I’m splitting hairs but you are as well. The definition of human life beginning at birth is just as arbitrary; a newborn infant is certainly not autonomous and if you want to use the terminology of parasitism it simply becomes an external parasite rather than an internal one at that point.

It’s that self determination toward a new, individual human being that makes it different than a clump of tissue that belongs to another human being.

It’s not self-determination. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It requires quite a bit of cellular input from outside sources.

The best you can say, I think, is that it’s close to the first time that the full set of chromosomes are together in one unit that can then be developed into a human being. It’s close to the first time. It’s not the last time. And depending on technology, it might not be the only timeline.

We’re splitting hairs and dealing with something that needs a lot of qualification to be defined. You look at a 5-year old in the mud, bleeding with a bruised knee, and you know that thing is alive. With a blastocyst, we’re at odds to even come to grips with the sheer magnitude of how small of an object we’re dealing with, and it’s hard to pretend that it’s surviving in any meaningful way excepting that it is, at that point, a parasite attached to another living being.

A fetus is … well, you decide.

And actually, egrubs, you get to the heart of the matter here. SCOTUS decided that instead of letting the people decide.

Again, I respect your right to dissent about whether or not that qualifies it for the right to protection of its life, but that’s a different argument altogether.

An egg isn’t human (harder to spill on the ground). It just needs a sperm cell and some help.

A fetus is … well, you decide. It just needs a whole lot of help over a long period of time.

My brain cells have a full set of chromosomes, and they aren’t a human being, but they’re closer to contributing to the daily life of a human being than a blastocyst.

but to say that it isn’t human (or to ridicule someone who says it is) is strange, to say the least.

Pick when you want to call a set of cells a human, but chosing the fetus is just another arbitrary hop in the line. Those who pick the fetus,however, often go a few steps further and want to limit the rights of real human beings.

As opposed to what, Holly? A human fetus is a living being (albeit one that needs nourishment from another living being) whose cells contain the full set of chromosomes and will go on to become an adult human if its life isn’t interrupted.

Logically I can understand why some people don’t think that a fetus should yet have the Constitutional right to life, but to say that it isn’t human (or to ridicule someone who says it is) is strange, to say the least.

You can kid yourself, but don’t expect everyone else to do the same.

Beauty shop, indeed!!

Otherwise, Huckabee appears just to be calling Edwards vain. Its trivial and stupid, but not on-face bigoted unless you make ASSUMPTIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE regarding intent.

Then again, we all know that ALL Republicans are homophobes, right? *wink, wink*

:rolleyes

Gov. Huckabee basically called John Edwards a homosexual while insulting Congress: Washington in recent years has “spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop”

The only men who are vain about their appearance are homosexual men, then?