You didn't - I didn't ascribe such beliefs to you directly, but instead jumped in front of any similar arguments preemptively, and additionally gave support to my views through the same.

It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. You cannot survive on heartbeat alone - in fact, literally by definition, the baby cannot survive until it is viable, which relies on many factors (a heartbeat is one).

The ability to survive as a human is what should define "being a human."

This is cute. It's also insipid, as is so often the case with cute things.

ADDED:

For the record, I don't consider the last statement ("lack a heart but not a heartbeat") a personal attack or an insult or anything like that - it's a rhetorical device but not one that rises to that level. So yeah, let's not pile onto GW for something he didn't do - reasonable people can disagree in reasonable fashion.

So why post irrelevant material about Margaret Sanger or South Park? If you realize that we're at an impasse, then so be it. I can respect that you have your beliefs, but when you impose that upon a woman and tell her what she can or must do with HER body at any point in time, then I'm going to fight it.

Abortions will ideally be rare, late-term abortions are already incredibly rare. Trying to draw a hard and fast line in the sand is less productive than working on the other factors involved.

And this isn't even getting into providing adequate support for and removing the shame factor from single mothers. If we stop shaming and we start supporting these women, they're less likely to turn to abortion. And it's not just single mothers, financial reasons are a motivation behind abortion for all women, among other things. Instead of trying to ban abortion, which leads to more unsafe situations, increasing other supports will decrease the need for abortion.

Ironically, however, the people who fight the most for the "right to life" and the people who argue for cutting social supports seem to have more overlap than not.

Now that is the proper way to insult someone. Stick it in and make them like it. Ha! :D

I posted about Margaret Sanger because many previous posts revolved around PP and how much good they were doing. Many were extolling its virtue. Some were also talking about how PP made a goodly percentage of its $$$ from abortion services. My point is/was that even the founder was not an abortion defender/advocate. She certainly had other idiosyncracies such as a belief in eugenics and that some people were inferior etc. but even she was opposed to abortion and felt it was taking a life.

I don't believe I posted anything about South Park. I never watch that show. I could be wrong but I do not remember that particular post.

The views of a founder don't necessarily or actually reflect the realities of the organization today. Additionally it doesn't matter what she thought whether she believed in eugenics, or as others have suggested used the language to win support among people who DID believe in eugenics. Her opinion on abortion is as relevant as any woman's, neither more nor less.

And it was EW who made the SP reference, my bad.