Fetuses equal tumors?

Just to make myself clear:

1. No, I do not favor amnesty.  Neither do  I favor the fiasco that would result in a massive roundup of 20 million or more illegal aliens. 

2. I hardly think that a fetus is the equivalent of a tumor, no matter what sterile terms are used to describe it..  It may be unwanted and inconvenient but it is a developing human being.  Unlike a tumor, which is an abomination that will ultimately kill the host if left unchecked, from the moment of conception, a fetus is a growing human being which will someday become a full fledged human being and love the host.

One could argue that a fetus is not yet a fully developed human being and could not survive on it's own, but then neither could a one month old baby, or even a three year old child for that matter.  Should a mother be free to rid herself of them also.  If so, their is a way to do it that applies all the way through - adoption.

No one is forcing women to be breeding pens, unless you want to blame nature for choosing the female as the one who gives birth - how patently absurd that argument is!  Ninety nine percent of pregnancies are a result of having unprotected sex.  If a woman wants to exercise the right to keep fetuses out of her body, then perhaps she would best be advised to keep unprotected penises out of her body.

3.  Just because Ron Paul was a libertarian for a couple of years out of the 50 plus years he has had any party affiliation does not make him beholden to every majority belief of the Libertarians.  Ron Paul is an independent thinker whose philosophy and actions are beholden to no one but himself, his Maker and the Constitution.

Any more questions?

DQ