but that inability to live independent of the mother, the ability to survive outside of the womb, is what differentiates a fetus from the human being it becomes.
The statement is based on the right to life, are you saying that a fetus is not alive? Or are you saying they do not qualify for that protection because they can not live on their own?
Tell me Ben, how old are you?
Old is defined by age, age is defined by date of birth. Answering that question is not one of hypocrisy, it is one of understanding the English language. My apologies for not being ignorant.
Killing a viable fetus on the technicality that hasn't been delivered yet is insane
Then when do you decide it is viable?
However, I would never deny a woman her liberty to choose otherwise
With the exception of rape, how was the woman not at liberty to decide in advance? Honestly I have never seen anyone so much as hint that women should be required to procreate in any way whatsoever.
and I find it completely abhorrent that others insist on doing so
I haven't said anything to the contrary of that, what I have been pointing out is that in the precise sentence you claim that alternative marriage choices are protected, another right is explicitly spelled out which you do not seem to agree with. I have no issue with people having differing perspectives, I do with hypocrisy however. It is interesting to see your rationalization for how it is not.
Like have you ever noticed how EVERY state requires you to wear your seat belt?
That would be a good point, if it were true. It isn't. I know this to be true as I live in a state that doesn't have mandatory seat belt laws for all of its' citizens.