^ Pretty much. Of the presidential candidates, Giuliani is the only one I know who breaks this rule, and he's almost like a Democrat who hasn't come out of the closet.

Giuliani is basically a republican that just happens to be more liberal on some social issues. If you look at his stance on things like the war in Iraq, his views seem far more conservative.

Wow, because that just the same! Great comparrison you got there! It's intelligence at this level most "pro-life" people have, and it's scary. Like I said before, if you don't believe in abortion, don't do it, but if someone else wants to abort, you just stay the fuck out of their private matters. Unbelievable.

It absolutely boggles my mind that pro-lifers equate murdering someone to abortion.. I'll never understand it, and I think it's probably best that I don't. That to me doesn't show a value of life, but rather a devaluation of the life of the already born people.

It's exactly the same and a perfectly valid comparison.  Surely you can accept the logic that if you hold the view that a fetus is a human being, killing said fetus is murder.  It doesn't take much intelligence to understand that it therefore follows that the government should outlaw this kind of murder as it does all other kinds.  You seem not to get the view that when you have one person trying to kill another it is most certainly the government's responsibility to prevent the killing from  happening.  You also seem to think that we should "stay the fuck out of private matters" that aren't private at all since they involve two people in a life or death situation.

It's easy enough to understand the principle: Think about the way you'd feel about someone carrying a baby to term and, feeling herself too incompetent to be a good mother or maybe just too inconvenienced, suffocating the newborn and tossing the body in a dumpster.

Now apply that sentiment that you feel for the "newborn" all the way back to "fertilized egg".

That's why I can respect elprincipe more than people making exceptions for rape, incest, etc. They're complete hypocrites. I disagree very strongly with elprincipe, but he's not inconsistent in the way those others are.

[edit:  Looking back, it seems that elprincipe has no problem killing fertilized eggs as long as they haven't been "implanted".  Why the distinction, elprincipe?]

Accepted that I was six days off; close enough, however.  Realize also that as science advances we are able to keep babies alive at earlier and earlier points after premature birth or emergency C-section.  So soon we will have babies being able to survive at 20 weeks, then 19, and so on.  Why are babies in the womb at those points in development not human now if you can accept they are human later?

And what is self-awareness?  Are you saying that babies that have been born prematurely are not self-aware?  That is a strange argument.

Lastly, your apple seed example is not a good one at all.  It would be more apt if you said you wouldn't classify an apple tree seedling as the same species as an apple tree.

That's funny because I feel the same way many times about arguments made by pro-abortion-legal folks.  It is not logical to arbitrarily define humanity based on birth or time in the womb, as most of you do.  Strangely, a lot of you will tell us that a baby past his or her due date that could easily be delivered by C-section is not human yet since a thin layer or skin and fluid separates it from the outside world.  Or that a non-human fetus magically becomes a human baby after 180 days in the womb, or 120 days the womb.  Or that a non-human fetus magically becomes human because it develops a certain organ or feature, despite the fact that newborns - obviously people - still are developing many of their internal systems and bone structure.  All of these arguments must be based on some degree of emotion, since they are not reasonably concluded from all the medical knowledge available to us.

Easy, many eggs are fertilized and never implanted in the female and start to grow. I don't mourn these as lost lives because they never began life as a person; they were merely fertilized eggs. Once a fertilized egg is implanted in the female and begins to grow on its own, that is a separate, distinct, unique person and not just the two building blocks of a person together.

@Elprincipe.

The change from a bunch of cells to a person is not an instantaneous thing like you are making it out we are saying. In the same way as when a tadpole changes into a frog there is no instant where it changes but rather a process over which it slowly changes.
A reasonable conclusion is that a fetus is a person when it is viable without being inside its mothers womb, once again there is no clearly defined point at which this is the case however it is usually accepted that a child born before around the 24th week of pregnancy is unlikely to survive.