[P-Marlowe]

Like I said earlier, let's not argue fringe cases, but pick the low hanging fruit, so to speak.

Well that's what everyone was arguing. Eagle Eye simply pointed out that from a strictly biblical standpoint, "life" does not exist until there is "blood". He made a valid point (IMHO) and people were treating him as if he were promoting partial birth abortion.

[MrB]

Sounds like a “don’t know when life begins” argument.
So, if you don’t know when life begins,

you expose a lot of your morality by where you choose to err.

[bcsco]

Eagle Eye simply pointed out that from a strictly biblical standpoint, "life" does not exist until there is "blood". He made a valid point (IMHO) and people were treating him as if he were promoting partial birth abortion.

No, you simplify his argument. He also stated that because there is no life until there is blood, there is no life preceding birth. And we pointed out that there was blood and flesh prior to birth. Thus, his argument was false. And we've been treating him based on his invectives toward us, which you simply ignore.