Replies

Your argument is without merit. Many children die of natural causes, it doesn't justify killing them. The bastocyst is human life. You can support the taking of human life but to argue that it is something different is simply dishonest.

I will agree that a blatocyst is human life inasmuch as my red blood cells are "human life" (they have human DNA and they are living cells). I cannot bring myself to believe that a clump of cells without any neural activity (impossible without nerual tissue) is a "human being" subject to the same rights and protections as someone with a brain (and thus the possibility of thought and sentience).

On the "natural causes" issue -- there are those who see childrens' deaths of "natural causes" as something to be prevented and they work toward such prevention. However, I've not seen any major cry -- even from the anti-abortion crowd -- demanding research to investigate the causes of fertilized ova from planting in the uterus. I would think that people who speak of the sanctity of unborn life beginning at conception would be willing to take any means necessary to insure that said life is "protected" from the moment it exists.

I maintain the 40-days stance because that's when neural development actually begins, but I did suggest two possibilities -- earlier here I posted a link to another article where I made the comment and the suggestions, go and check them out. Also keep in mind that on another discussion forum (dealing with stem cell research) a person suggested that a special division of the police be created to examine the ... er ... "release" from menstruating women to see if any fertilized eggs were present (and if so launch an investigation). He was quite serious -- and he also thought that my ideas were "intrusive" and absurd. Go figure.