The embryonic heartbeat begins at about 22 days after conception. It is logical to deduce that heart tissue beating at 22 days or so would have to have been formed in the period of a week or more before that. So now we're down to two weeks or so after conception that cells have already been differentiated into organ tissue and begun to operate on some nascent level. At what point does the "law of diminishing returns" kick in in your's, and everyone elses', brains on this issue? You've already lost the argument for 95% of the typical gestation cycle of a human being. Does that last two weeks left actually MEAN anything to anyone?

Human life begins as soon as the egg is fertilized and a unique set of 46 chromosomes - no longer the mother or the father (or their predecessors for that matter) -- directs development of a different life. It is astounding to me that the /. community, which tends to be made up of intellectually capable professionals and scientific folk, could be so stupefyingly obdurate and scientifically ignorant on this point. Embryo is defective? Dies. Doesn't implant? Dies. Mother has hormone or other problem? Dies usually. Stress or environmental problems? Child might die. There are lots of different reasons why an embryonic life might not make it to term and be "born." That doesn't detract from the fundamental issue -- individual human rights.

It's time to get past the argument as to whether life begins at conception. That question is done, and a matter of biological/scientific fact. I don't care about the soul argument either, or for that matter the morality of it. For the sake of argument, the only thing that matters now is, as a society, as a race and species, does an unborn citizen of the human race have a right to life and liberty? Does a woman have the right to control her body when controlling her body means the ending of a life? Should any person have a right to live, even if their mother or father want them to die? Should embryos be forced to exist in perpetual stasis because they aren't wanted anymore? Should the human race even be allowed to turn basic human procreation into a cottage industry without dealing with the very real consequences of frozen embryos? Should embryos even be created outside of the NORMAL method -- inside a human being, and not in a petri dish? Should the human race be compelled to take real responsibility for their ability to create life in EVERY respect, and not just the ones convenient for people? In other words, shouldn't two people have to take responsibility for themselves BEFORE she gets pregnant, not after?

There is no right to privacy or abortion enumerated or even implied in the Unites States constitution. It was largely invented by lawyers and the Supreme Court seeking to make and end run around U.S. law by legislating via the judicial. The Constitution guarantees implicitly and explicitly the right to life and liberty, however. The body politic of the U.S. -- and for that matter of any other country -- need to settle this. I argue that it can be proved factually that life begins at conception, and that under the framework of our society in the U.S., it is not lawful to kill someone without cause. As sick or torturous for the people involved, even in cases of rape or incest (currently well less than 2% of all abortions but horrific nonetheless for the woman and child(ren) involved) there "isn't cause" to kill the child(ren), unless you want to say that emotional distress is cause.

This whole argument is saturated in emotion, and at some point the vitriol has to stop and real HARD questions need to be asked, an answered. And you know who should be leading the charge on this, but does just the opposite? The ACLU and Democrats. Why? More people means more government to support them, more teachers, more potential taxpayers and union members, more of everything government. The ACLU should because they have always argued to defend the least defended in society. In most states the unborn have no rights.

That would be incorrect on a couple of fronts:

1. Offspring are symbiotes, not parasites. Most parasites impart no benefit and tend to cause direct or indirect harm to the host. For example, in an ectopic pregnancy the fetus is considered something of a parasite or enemy of the mother because it cannot come to term and will kill both itself and the mother. It is lawful to terminate not because you're killing the child but you are saving the mother from death -- the double effect principle.
2. From the moment of conception, there is a discrete set of 46 chromosomes, and that discrete set of chromosomes is guiding the development of that life. The zygote/fetus/child/person derives nutritional and hormonal benefits from the mother. In return the fetus imparts its own hormonal help during development and appears to stave off the risk of several different types of cancers in the mothers.

You may think contraception and abortion should be legal, and that there should be someone sort of Middle Ages calculation where "life begins" -- but biologically, life begins at the level of DNA, and that happens at conception.

I think the problem with your comment is that the ACLU exists to defend the rights of the people that it represents, or their civil liberties. Whether their positions or those of their clients upholds the constitution is a different matter. They do sometimes, and other times they do not. Whether they actually defend the constitution in what they do is a matter of debate and opinion. Because the ACLU's political leanings are so far left of center, they are a natural target for conservatives because they often advocate ideas that conservative vehemently oppose.

I dare say that no one, no matter what their political beliefs, would consider the ACLU representing "mainstream" liberal ideals.

As I see it, the ACLU is a prime example of "minority tyranny" that the Founding Fathers of the United States discussed at length during and after the ratification of the Constitution. The ACLU advocates for the minority mostly at the expense of the majority, and they feel this is their raison d'etre, while neo-cons tend to be guilty of the opposite. They advocate "majority tyranny" by using majority rule to silence or stifle parties that oppose them. The Bush administration is a prime example. Look at the disasterous effects of our Vice President Dick Cheney's "strong executive branch" philosophy in legislation, national security, energy and military policy.

Everything about the American political structure is based on balance: minority vs. majority rights, individual vs. society rights, balance of powers, states rights vs. federal rights, individual citizens rights vs. corporate rights, the right to petition the government (at the heart of political actions groups, or factions) vs. the rights of the elected to govern without undue partisan influence, and the rights of nations and our national sovereignty vs. international resposibilities in politics and trade.

If any of these positions is allowed to dominate, and throw U.S. society or politics out of balance, the Republic is troubled.

The U.S. has a strong arm dictator as president running roughshod over the Constitution, do-nothing left-over 60s leftists in charge of the Democratic party, corporations peddling influence to the detriment of everyone except them and their stockholders, minority and majority tyranny at work simultaneously, floods of illegal aliens essentially flouting the U.S. and its laws who are being backed by the leaders of their central and south American countries because of the vast sums of money flowing out of the U.S. to central and south America, and the President and the U.S. Federal Reserve using flawed economic theories and flawed diplomatic policies that are destabilizing the world economy and world financial markets and undermining the steadily decreasing U.S. dollar.

We my friends, have serious problems. Big ones... most of which Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain aren't even talking about or if they are, are not offering viable solutions.