While I agree with your logic and your position, nevertheless I think we need to concede that A does not necessarily follow B. The fact of the matter is that in dozens of places in the old testament God reiterates that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and therefore I think that those who make the case that the embryo is not fully alive until the heart begins to beat have a legitimate theological argument.
I came to the defense of Eagle Eye on this point as there were a lot of posters who were basically accusing him of being a Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid clone because he had made a valid theological argument in favor of holding off calling an abortion murder unless it actually stopped a beating heart.
I for one would be more than happy (and very satisfied) to support a law that prohibited all abortions where an ultrasound could detect a beating heart. That would eliminate 99.99999% of all abortions.
But some people will not be content until not only are all abortions prohibited, but that all contraceptive practices are met with equal disdain and punished either as if a murder had taken place. As shown earlier on this thread Jer 1:5 is used as a justification for considering artificial contraception to be in the same league with abortion.
You apparently missed my posts, as well as others, that showed the heart fully developed and functioning by the 21st day, and pumping even more blood by the 30th day. And as others pointed out, that’s well within the window of the time between conception and when a woman will likely discover her pregnancy; or very shortly thereafter.
Since you argue “God reiterates that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and therefore I think that those who make the case that the embryo is not fully alive until the heart begins to beat have a legitimate theological argument”, then I would expect you’d agree that at the 21st day, or possibly sooner, the embryo IS fully alive at that stage since there is both flesh and blood. Or by the 30th day at the latest. Therefore, our point, continuously argued against by Eagle Eye and ol’ Hank, that the abortion of a fetus is murder is a valid point since the vast majority of abortions occur beyond that point.
That’s my final say. I’m tired of this because it’s devolved into argument for argument’s sake, and has lost any real value of discussion. We’ve made our points and have refuted those made by naysayers. Anything else is a waste of time.
However, to say "the life is in the blood thereof" is limiting in a way that raises questions about what that line actually means. For example, I know there are instances when total transfusions are required for medical reasons. This alone makes me question any limiting of life(spirit) to an intra-body PHYSICAL carrier (blood).
If I were to say, "the red blood cells are in the blood thereof" you would say, "Yes, but...."
Erythropoiesis is the development process in which new erythrocytes are produced, through which each cell matures in about 7 days. Through this process erythrocytes are continuously produced in the red bone marrow of large bones, at a rate of about 2 million per second in a healthy adult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell#Life_cycleSo, red blood cells are also found in the bones. That doesn't mean that "red blood cells are in the blood thereof" is wrong. It isn't. It just isn't the total story.
I don't see anything in the verse: "the life is in the blood thereof" to say to me that that is the total story. And especially so since we are talking about "spirit" and "physical."
So, we would be wrong to attack eagle eye for a legitimate effort to correct scripture. We would also be wise to determine if that interpretation is partial or complete.