There are exactly two that say "look at my other comments;" I've typed lengthy replies to the vast majority of the people who have replied to me.

But is it not the responsibility of any government official to make an ethical decision based on their ethics? Actually, it's probably more responsible for them to make a decision based on their constituents' ethics, but I think the point stands.

I say that you're trolling because you can't manage to present your conversation without resorting to insult, assumption, and marginalization. And your coup de grace is to finish off with the old chestnut "anything you say proves my point."

Yours is not criticism, it's just a diatribe. I'll leave it at that, because I've already responded more to a troll than I should have. If you are interested in what I've already said regarding my thoughts on the matter, please read some of my other comments.

Please read my responses to other people. I've addressed this in other comments.

Please see the rest of my replies. As I expound upon in them, if it were simply a matter of individual body autonomy, then this would be a nonissue. The problem is that you and I likely see different points at which "your body" becomes "yours and someone else's body."

I'm sorry that you feel so threatened by others' beliefs that you have to marginalize them and make ludicrous assumptions about those who believe them (i.e. "uneducated").

They couldn't have gone with "Saurosaur?" Missed opportunity.

Please read one of my numerous other replies to this exact same statement. I would love to have a conversation with you (or anyone) on this subject, but I do not care to keep writing the same thing over and over.

Please read some of my replies below; I know the reflex is to say "but freedom of religion is freedom from religion too!" (as someone said verbatim below), but the point at hand is not a matter of legislating personal choice to (approximately) half the parties involved.

Again, I agree with you to a large part, but I feel like you are unable to understand this from the POV of the "other side." I don't think anyone who believes that pre-viability fetuses/embryos are alive is asking for special treatment for those cases, they're simply asking that it be illegal to take a life…

The issue at hand is the notion of immaterial and scientifically unverifiable parts of life, i.e. souls or the like.

I suppose denotatively there's nothing wrong with it, but connotatively the implication is there that religious beliefs are facile (as superstition is regarded to be by nearly everyone). Communication isn't just output, it's an I/O process.

My faith is there (I don't see how you could say it's not?), although you would obviously dispute what I believe. It's often easy to miss when someone is being rude when you agree with them (or when you are similarly rude), but in case you are interested in improving your prose (or at least your ability to effectively…

No, you're right. My point is this: I think that the core of the argument is the point of viability/life, just like the author mentions in the original article. And consequently, I think that, regardless of where anyone thinks that point is, most would agree that it's wrong to take a life (obviously there are…

How incredibly condescending!

Didn't "You've Got Mail" actually echo that theme a bit? I mean, it hardly demonized Meg Ryan's store, but they definitely did work (by necessity, given the genre and Tom Hanks's character being the boss) to make sure that the megacorp wasn't as bad as it was assumed to be.

No one sees your skin when the lights are off and a movie's playing.

Obviously you're only willing to engage on a hyperbolic level - you're set on viewing the show the way you've decided to view it. Fine - go for it.