"You naively and falsely claim that "Abortion does not rseult (did you mean result?) in the death of a human being."

First of all, you are using the word "naively" incorrectly.  The word does not mean "saying something I disagree with".  Second, your "did you mean X?" schtick is getting rather old.  Yes, people sometimes misspell words while typing them into a tiny, tiny screen.  You don't get points for pointing it out.  While my errors have been simply typos, I have the feeling that your misspelling of "role" is due to you  actually not knowing the difference between "role" and "roll".

"Are you ignorant of the fact that most, if not all abortions, result in the death of, not as you say, a "single-celled organism", but instead an actual human being?"

Again, you are having trouble with the meaning of words.  "Ignorant", like "naive", does not mean "saying something I disagree with".  It is less common for an abortion to result in the death of a human being than for carrying a pregnancy to term to do so.  Furthermore, it is irrelevant to my point whether "most" of abortions do not involve a single-celled organism.  As long as there is ONE single-celled organism whose destruction anti-choicers label the killing of a human being, it is legitimate to point out that anti-choicers hold a position that is flat-out absurd.

"Modern medical internal imaging devices reveal that a single-celled organism, when fertilized,  soon develops quite rapidly into a human being with arms, legs, and a head. Somehow your particular development may have been somewhat stunted in regard to that latter appendage."

No, a single-celled organism rapidly develops into something that looks somewhat like a human being.  Interesting how readily you resort to ad hominem attacks.

"Even in the early and middle ages, people observingly used to refer to a pregnant female as being “with child.” "

They also referred to the sun "rising", even though it was the Earth that was moving.  Do you seriously not understand how pathetic your arguments are?

"It's surprising that Barack Obama pompously maintains, with his narcissistic head and index finger held high, that terrorists should not be subjected to what he defines as torture. But he conveniently ignores abortion, the grossest torture which is cruelly and inhumanely inflicted on millions of innocent infants each and every year, in the US."

Fetuses, not infants.  Do you think that killing animals for food should be outlawed as well?  Because that's not pretty, either.

"A rational individual (which you are not) would wonder why abortion should be considered legal right up to the time that an infant would normally be born, but then if another child were to be killed one minute after he or she was born, that would be considered murder."

Because a hard limit must be established, and this is the least arbitrary.  What is the alternative?  Either you say that a single-celled organism is a human being, or you say that a pregnancy can be aborted up to X days, but after X days, suddenly it's illegal.

"If your concern is truly for the "poor kid on its own," maybe it might be worthwhile for you to tell promiscuous females to be responsible by changing their immature narcissistic misbehaviour!"

"Immature narcissistic misbehaviour"?  You mean like not using birth control because the very same people who claim they oppose abortion have done everything they can to discourage the use of birth control?  I'd ask you what makes you think that it's reasonable to imply that anyone who wants an abortion is "promiscuous", but I've seen how poorly you respond to requests for you to justify your assertions.  

You STILL refuse to answer my questions.  I guess you realize that your position cannot be rationally defended, and so resort to childish responses such as referring to your opponents as "obamabo(ugh)ts".

If the Senate wants to pass a health care bill that respects the will of the American people, it will need to add restrictions to abortion funding. “A majority of the House of Representatives voted for the Stupak/Pitts amendment, and that represents the thinking of a majority of Americans. The Senate should act in a similar manner. This is a health care bill, not a bill to expand child killing.

Those who argue that abortion is a private matter in which the government has no business cannot then insist that federal funds be used to pay for it. “Money laundering schemes or shell games will not be tolerated.  Abortion is not health care and taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize it.

Holly N -

Society itself is not "unfriendly to children" - it is only the segment of society that condones abortion.

It's pathetic that you would state that "Anti-abortionists want to force chldren (did you mean children?) to be born."

It may come as a surprise to you to learn that generally being born is part of the natural human reproductive process, and NOT as you say, an event FORCED by anyone.

I do realize that occasionally doctors, who choose to attempt to protect ALL HUMAN LIFE, do occasionally have to assist in complicated birth situations.

If your concern is truly for the "poor kid on its own," maybe it might be worthwhile for you to tell promiscuous females to be responsible by changing their immature narcissistic misbehaviour!