On the night of Feb. 5, Hawa Adama Barry, in the ninth month of pregnancy, was shot in the abdomen during a stand-off between two groups of young men. Early reports from authorities suggested that the baby died in the womb. Thus, the Boston Globe's headline the next day read: "Passenger shot, her fetus dies as men clash."

Some readers were quick to object to "fetus." A few echoed the abortion related debate about when life begins, but most argued that the use of such a clinical word to describe an almost full-term baby made the Globe look silly and insensitive.

Several readers suggested what that angle might be. Wasn't this, they asked, a not so subtle attempt by the liberal Globe (whose editorial page supports abortion "rights") to make the point that life doesn't begin until birth? The night of the shooting, night desk staffers -- who didn't receive the story until after midnight -- debated the word choice question. There were clear arguments on both sides, says Night Editor David Jrolf. Finally, as third edition deadline loomed, he telephoned Michael Larkin, deputy managing editor for news operations, at home. Larkin ruled in favor of "fetus," and the paper went to press.

The next day -- as newsroom discussion continued -- the issue was made moot by new information: The baby had been delivered in the hospital and had lived a short time. Thus, he died as a newborn. Globe stories thereafter switched from "fetus" to "baby" (further confusing some readers).

Larkin said he believed "fetus" was the correct word for the first-day story because Webster's definition clearly fit: "An unborn offspring, especially in its later stages and specifically in humans, from about the eighth week after conception until birth."

It is times such as these that the word games of the pro-aborts become sickening. Have you ever heard a mother say “would you like to feel my fetus kicking?” Of course not. She says, “would you like to feel my baby, or child kicking.”

Larkin knows this. He didn't have to go to a dictionary. All he had to do was use common sense. Maybe Planned Parenthood or NARAL would have used the word “fetus” in this situation because they are in the business of killing them, or promoting their deaths, but a major newspaper being this insensitive, and I don't care how liberal they are, is appalling.

But now that we know that the Boston Globe and all liberals like to stick to the true meaning of words as found in the dictionary, that is fine with me and should make all pro-lifers ecstatic for the following reason: Because of the advent of DNA, no longer could pro-aborts say that the unborn were not human beings and since science was not on their side as to when human life begins -- at conception, they had to come up with something and fast, so they decided to latch on to the word “person.”

When pinned down, they now admit that human beings are being killed in the womb, BUT, they are not persons, so they say.

How could anyone with a modicum of intelligence come to that conclusion? Don't they know the meaning of words?

Apparently they don't, so why didn't they go to their friend, the dictionary and look up the word “person?” If they did, they would have found that it means, “a human being.” And if they looked up “human being” they would have found that it means a “person.”

So, apparently, the abortion debate is now over, thanks to the Boston Globe, which insists that when in doubt, go to the dictionary.

We can now expect this liberal newspaper in their editorials to publicize the FACT that unborn children are indeed persons and as such are protected under the 14th Amendment and from now on, they will refer to an unborn child as a person. We know, according to the dictionary, that a group of human beings/persons are "people.”

So, since 1973, the infamous and terribly flawed Supreme Court decision that legalized the killing of unborn children, over 43 million PEOPLE have been killed (ED NOTE: The number of babies killed by Aug, 2005, is generally stated as about 45 million).

. I'm glad we got that straight, the abortion debate is now over. Roe Vs Wade will certainly be overturned as soon as “humanly” possible. We CANNOT continue to kill our young. Every day that goes by another 4,000 young people are killed.

Yeah right! The liberal left ONLY adheres to the meaning of words when it fits their agenda. Even though a HUMAN BEING is defined in the dictionary as a PERSON, they will continue to say that it is not a person. They have no shame -- only gall.

So, not only is science not on their side, now we can add dictionaries. It must be nice to have your cake and eat it too. One would think that the truth would always win out, especially when you have science (DNA) on your side, as well as the dictionary and it's obvious, the other side has to rely on lying, cheating and linguistic gymnastics.

This is just more evidence that satan is running amok. How else can this happen in an intelligent and supposedly civilized society, unless the prince of darkness is somehow involved?

When you have to resort to changing the meaning of words in the dictionary and to denounce science to make your case, then you have no case and have reached rock bottom.

Along this same line, most states have laws that if you injure a pregnant woman and her unborn child dies, you can be prosecuted. The personhood of the unborn child does indeed exist and is covered under the 14th Amendment. But, if the woman hires a licensed professional hit man to kill her unborn child via the medical term called an induced abortion, then that child's personhood, somehow has vanished into thin air. It makes no sense at all. One can readily understand that this dichotomy sets jurisprudence on its ear. It makes a joke out of our legal system and CANNOT stand on its merit.

Roe Vs Wade is hanging by a demon thread. All that is required to brush away the thread and bring some semblance of honor back to our legal system is five good people on the Supreme Court who know the meaning of words and will allow science to decide when human life begins and NOT politics. Is this too much to ask for?

It is a SCIENTIFIC fact (DNA) that human beings are created at conception and a human being is a person. LOOK IT UP.

Therefore unborn children (regardless of their gestational age) are covered under the 14th Amendment and should have the protection of our legal system against all bodily harm. It's right there in black and white (persons) in the Constitution of the United States.

They are also covered under the Declaration of Independence -- “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Nowhere does it say “born” equal. It says “created” equal. SO, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? CASE CLOSED.

That swishing noise you hear is emanating from the nine Supreme Court Justices running for their robes and heading for the bench to overturn Roe Vs Wade. They want to bring respect back to the highest court in the land.

THEY FINALLY REALIZE THAT SCIENCE HAS TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER POLITICS, AND WORDS DO HAVE MEANINGS.