Meandog, your arguments are not logical. You have apparently made your decision about when life begins, but really don't have anything to back it up.
If you don't know when life begins, then how can you know it doesn't begin in a test tube?
If life is only life when it has a viable chance of living outside the womb, then 50 years ago "life" began at a different time than it does now?
You also said earlier that God doesn't put a soul into a person until it reasonably resembles a human being....exactly when does that happen? Are you sure? What if you're wrong? What if the soul goes in a week earlier than you think?
Lastly, your referral to "quickening" makes me doubt seriously your real knowledge of this subject. Quickening is when the mother feels the baby. It is subjective and varies based on lots of things other than the development of the baby. I hope you will approach this from a more logical perspective....Look at the facts, and then decide when you believe the embryo becomes human, and please remember that whatever conclusion you come to will be your belief not fact, because nobody really knows when the soul attaches. I'd just rather be wrong in the direction of not destroying humans with souls as opposed to the other way.
O2
Well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree...it is ironic to me, however, how many of solid right-to-lifers (though perhaps not you specifically) stipulate the "except in the event of rape or incest" escape clause in their argument (as President Bush does). If life begins at conception and is so precious then why the distinction of how it began?