[jas3]

Is that why so few scientists are opposed to IVF and to destroying fertilized embryos?

Not really. One can take an honest position, acknowledge that embryo's are nascent human life and still advocate killing them for utilitarian purposes. I don't agree with that postition morally but at least it is a scientifically honest one. The crap you and the other clown are selling is simply dishonest bs.

You see the difference?

Actually you'll be pleased to hear that I am not selling anything. The question which I came to this thread to help answer for myself was "does a blastosphere" deserve moral or legal protection and why? The answer which I've resolved for myself is that I don't consider a colletion of 7 cells to be a human. But I would attach legal protection to those cells at implantation.

A blastosphere is not a human. Do YOU see the difference between a blastosphere and an infant? I think not.

jas3

[jwalsh07]

The answer which I've resolved for myself is that I don't consider a colletion of 7 cells to be a human.

Then you have to answer the question of what exactly those cells are. The answer is not up for debate, it is based on reason and science. Those cells are a human organism at that stage of development on the human species continuum. There is no other answer. Truth is truth.

[syriacus]

What would it take to convince you that blastospheres should not be destroyed?