But that is the point of the thread. The issue is what do we do in cases of rape or incest? Do we outlaw any procedure which would stop the embryo from attaching itself to the uterus because that would be murder?
The legal question then becomes, when and why would we call that murder and under what circumstances, if any should we conclude that anything less than a viable fetus is a "life" that must be protected at the expense of the liberty of the mother?
Now you can make a theological argument that life begins at the moment of conception, but then that argument is not concrete. You have to have a "secular" definintion in order to restrict the liberty of the mother. It also has to be a definition that will appeal to the vast majority of the citizens of this country.
Since we measure the end of life by the last heartbeat, it is not unreasonable to measure the beginning of life by the first heartbeat. This would solve the issue of what to do in cases of rape as there are means of keeping the egg from attaching to the uterus even before the first heartbeat.
But to deny a rape victim the opportunity to prevent a pregnancy that has not yet occurred is not going to go over too well with the majority of citizens in this nation.
So then the question becomes are we willing to continue to allow indiscriminate abortion on demand because we must insist that we need to protect the life of an embryo that has not yet even attached itself to it's mother's womb?
My personal opinion is that I can think of no legitimate precedent among civilized people where a child is executed for the crime of his or her father.
As a realist, I know that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to tell rape victims that they must carry a baby to term.
That being said, rape victims have ample access to the morning after pill and, while I am opposed to this, I think it might make the most sense for rape victims.
Good policy is not necessarily the right thing to do. What is the slippery slope that traps the human race if it agrees to kill what it knows to be human life?
Getting God’s perspective correct is the first order of business, as I see it.
We then build our policy DESPITE the difficulties it might cause.
I have argued in the past exactly as you are now: prevent implantation and you have not killed a human.
But what if it is a fact that only truly living joinings of sperm and egg are those that implant?
One thing we have learned is that the contraception generation has come to believe that it determines who lives and who dies. That was the slippery slope.
And that is the logic of the Health Care philosophers who dreamed up the death panels.