According to a former presidential front-runner, this below is a human being:
Let me be more specific: according to Mike Huckabee, this fertilised human egg you see before you is in reality an actual human being that deserves full constitutional protection "guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law."
Just to repeat: he insists there should be rights guaranteed to "equality of justice" ... to "due process of law" ... to life, liberty and the pursuit to property and happiness ... for eggs. That's like confusing an acorn with an oak, caviar with sturgeon, and a car wrecker's yard with a fleet of automobiles. Talk about confusing a potential with an actual.
No wonder the Denver Post derisively dubbed the proposal before the Colorado senate as the "egg as person" amendment. [Hat tip, you know who.] This is not "pro-life," it's pro-idiocy. Eggs are people, evolution is a myth ... next thing you know he'll be telling us the world is only six-thousand years old and the Pharoahs were all dinosaur farmers.
What does it actually mean to grant "full constitutional protection" to an egg? To something that is merely a 'potential'? What it would do is to obliterate the rights of actual, living human beings. As Ayn Rand observes, "by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives."
The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone's benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.
Looks like Republican voters have saved us by a narrow margin from having a genuine fruit loop having the chance to carry the nuclear football. Bless them. ;^)
UPDATE: Not that the choices without the nutbar are any better. On the question of which of the two main presidential candidate "will pose the more far-reaching threat to individual liberty," Robert Bidinotto puts the choices thus:
1. Barack Obama, who will put forth a sweeping leftist agenda domestically, fill the courts and bureaucracies with leftists, and retire from the War on Terrorism abroad -- assuming Congress will let him have his way, or
2. John McCain, who will continue the War on Terrorism abroad -- to the extent Congress permits it -- but who will hand over the U.S. economy to the environmentalists and anti-business regulators domestically, while committing the formerly pro-capitalist Republican Party to "progressive" statism?
Talk about Tweedledum and Tweedledumbarse.