[HangnJudge]

When a distinction is needed, we devise laws that draw one, typically erring on the side of caution, given prevailing community attitudes.

Ahhh..... back to Caesar establishing issues of life and death, truth by consensus, not by principle, as long as they see it is my best interest.

Sorry, the one most effected, the embryo, doesn't get a vote, only us self interested adults.

S..t Heads

This discussion still doesn't advance the debate
Off with it's head

[beavus]

You are right, that principle should precede law. But in the case of temporal processes, like the life cycle, nature provides us with no sharp transitions. So what principle would you use?

Of course you could use the pragmatic approach described and just arbitrarily draw the line somewhere during the process of conception (I'm assuming you want the law to protect human embryos). Afterall, the author does say that the lines the law draws should be "typically erring on the side of caution". I guess it depends upon what margin of error is acceptable, eh?

[Defend the Second]

Agree. This article should be aborted.