[Sabertooth]

I don't think embryonic life in the first trimester should receive legal protection, because I don't think there is any sentinence.

Is there sentience in the comatose? In the anencephalic?

If a woman is 10 weeks pregnant and is assaulted, resulting in a miscarriage, is this just your garden-variety aggravated assault?

In any event, I think you'd agree that there is a significant faction in the GOP coalition that disagrees with your first trimester exception. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, given the demonstrated scientific promise of other, less morally problematic lines of stem cell inquiry besides the fetal, why risk the political fallout of the fetal stem cell tar baby?

[Torie]

We have already discussed the politics. Your road has more risks. If someone is permanently comatose (and if we are unsure about the permanence, that is another matter), I think the state should not pay for continued maintenance. What the relatives decide to do is up to them. The misscarriage is another source of civil damage, and a more severe injury for criminal purposes. Should it be a homicide? No, IMO. Yes, I am drawing distinctions. I am drawing lines based on certain a priori values about what is life, and what isn't. There is no right or wrong answer when one draws such lines IMO, except through the lens of one's own a priori values and assumptions.

[RadioAstronomer]

I spoke in haste. I still think sentience does not exist at that time; however, your other arguments raise questions I am unable to address with a clear conscience.

I rescind my statement.

[Torie]

By the way, it is legal now to pull the plug on the permanently comatose, and should be.