If the fetus is a part of her body, then just exactly what part is it?

Gosh, all that biology and anatomy that I learned in college, for the life of me (no pun intended) I don't remember ever hearing about the "temporary fetal organ" in women.

Sorry, but it's not a matter of opinion.  A fetus/embyro is a separate individual human being, albeit at a very early stage of development, one that is distinct from either of the parents.

And sorry, but you can also tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body, especially when that "telling her what to do" is simply to do nothing.  Pregnancy is a natural organic forcing -- I know propagandists like you like to make it sound otherwise, but sorry, men didn't invent pregnancy.  Ashley Judd wants to tell Sarah Palin that she cannot use her hands to pick up a gun, and her finger to pull the trigger to kill wolves.  There is no universal moral principle that says "Thou shalt not restrain others from killing others."

And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall.   -- Edgar Allan Poe

"The pre-war setup never mentioned freeing their people from tyranny."

Yes, it did. You just don't want to admit it.

Gore, Clinton, Kerry, and many other Democrats all described Saddam as a tyrant and all stated their desire to free the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny.  They just wanted to use a different method other than an invasion of Iraq.

But not even a tyrant like Saddam allowed 35 MILLION of his own citizens to be nonchalantly killed while in the womb.

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

clothes hangers to themselves is supposed to be an excuse for having legal murder? GMAFB.

All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden?  P.J. O' Rourke

No, my problem is a lack of Liberty.  You see, a fetus has no liberty in your world.  According to you abortion supporters, that innocent fetus is not a human being, and, therefor , has no rights.  Not even the FATHER has rights over that innocent child, those rights are only reserved for the mother. And you don't see a problem with this?

Even our greatest enemy on the battlefield have more rights than a human fetus has right here in America. When it comes to liberty, when it comes to freedom, that fetus has NONE. THIS HAS TO END!

Obama: My job is above my pay grade

Indeed, there are surely people who, upon choosing to get an abortion, force themselves to rationalize a pro-choice position.  But there are still others, lots of us, who are emphatically pro-choice and have no personal investment in it (i.e. no immediate need to avail that service).  And still others who are pro-choice but would choose not to actually have one; which is, in my view, the most ethically-sound stance on the issue.

I don't understand why Sarah Palin should make pro-choice people or those who have had abortions feel uncomfortable.  Because she "chose life"?  How would she make anyone any more anxious in this regard than anybody who has kids?  But then, there's a lot I don't understand about either Palin's appeal or that liberals are supposedly "afraid" of her.

The fact that the Founding Fathers didn't specifically identify the unborn as persons is disingenuous. Logically, you can't construe the absense of identification as the identification of absence. The fact that they didn't specifically mention fetuses as persons is not proof that they thought the unborn were not persons.

"Disingenuous"...how so?  The Constitutional non-identification of the unborn as "persons" may not be dispositive of the issue, but determining the intent of the drafters by examining contemporaneous attitudes and practices, related language within the four corners of the document itself, and historical judicial interpretation is not only not disingenuous, but is also the very analytical methodology routinely employed by courts of review.  Thus the "absence of identification" is merely the starting point--not the end point.

Both English common law and colonial law broadened the concept of person rather than restrict it. "Person" as legal concept refers not just to individual humans, but also to corporations and governments, so that they can possess property and serve as parties to lawsuits.

The manner that any concept of "personhood" was extended to entities such as corporations and governments was by creating a legal fiction which recogized that these entities, while inanimate objects, for certain limited legal purposes would be regarded as a "person" such as for the service of lawsuits.  In fact, I'm not sure it is entirely correct to say corporations are regarded as persons even in the strict sense to which you and I allude.  The person who accepts service of a lawsuit is merely acting as an agent for the corporation.  Moreover, if there is criminal or fraudulent conduct, or the corporation is merely a sham, the corporate veil may be pierced to impose personal liability.  In any event, the analogy sheds very litttle light on the abortion debate in general or on the question of who is or is not a "person" in particular.  Nor would I think the average pro-lifer would be entirely comfortable with the comparison of the unborn to unliving legal constructs.

What made Roe v. Wade and such decisions new (i.e., not based on precedent) is that they used the concept of person to narrow the definition. Like with slavery, their argument depended on the idea that a living, breathing human being wasn't a full "person."

The only two cases of lawyers arguing that a living human being is not a full person are (1) to justify slavery (2) to justify abortion. Not great company, is it?

You interpret Roe and related decisions as "narrowing" the concept of "person".  The Roe majority and judicial scholars supporting Roe on that issue would counter that the decision instead resisted the effort to improperly and illogically expand the constitutional definition of "person" to embrace pre-natal beings.  Early Supreme Court decisions considered slaves to be mere chattel--a very restrictive view of personhood indeed.  Fortunately, Constitutional amendments and an enlightened judiciary eventually corrected that sorry chapter in American history.  Perhaps, the Supreme Court will someday view questions such as when life begins and the legal underpinnings for abortion rights differently and further modify Roe or overturn it altogether.  But, that part of the decision which examines the issue of "persons" within the context of relevant constitutional provisions concerning due process protections, the intent of its drafters, and surrounding circumstances seems to me to rest on fairly solid ground--at least as it may apply to the very early stages of gestation.

It's unfair to draw conclusions about their attitudes on any modern debates based on language they wrote when they weren't aware how their language would be used.

Why not?  It's done all the time, and rightly so.  The gun rights advovcates--as well as their adversaries--rely heavily on such attitudes, whether inferential or expressed.  And the Founding Fathers may not [and could not] have foreseen precisely how their language might be used in a distant future, but the framers clearly were aware that it would, in fact, be used.  On that point, I'll gladly echo lotr's reference in the preamble to "posterity".

Jer

Boxers resemble diapers, babies wear diapers, fetuses don't wear diapers, therefor a fetus can not be a baby!

Obama: My job is above my pay grade